Behind the curtain: How much focus should a loud protest get?

How may biases have come into play with some of the news we've covered over the past year?

We on our Objectivity Council looked at how we covered schools and the pandemic. First, last spring, there was the issue facing school districts of whether to allow or force students back into buildings for in-person classes. Protests ensued on both sides, but more among those wanting a return to in-person classes. We dutifully covered many of them and at times gave them big play. Many were pretty big, after all.

We thought a kind of sea change was happening, that a majority of parents wanted their schools' administrations to change course. We even thought we might see school boards overturned in elections in favor of new board members urging in-person classes.

It didn't happen. It appeared more anti-remote protesters were really a loud minority - though, actually, it was still close to 50% of parents, based on school districts' own surveys.

Still, we had to ask, did we overplay some of these protests? Does it matter whether they represented a minority or majority view? Other factors come into play with protest coverage decisions, such as an emerging point of view or simply disruption. But is there a point where it's too much?

We kept this in mind when covering the new school issue of last fall - masking requirements. The same questions emerged. Should we cover every protest? Only protests in official school board meetings? What about those on street corners? Outside administration offices? What if there are only a dozen people? How many protesters make a real movement? And are protesters just out for media attention?

There are rarely clear answers. We must use our best judgment - and of course the debatability of that is what makes "objectivity" so challenging. But we're making it our goal to keep examining ourselves to present the most truthful and fair reports.