As you read historical sources, particularly primary sources, you may find yourself noticing that some language used by the source's creator is extreme or obviously one-sided. When you notice this, you have noticed potential bias. Finding out more about bias helps you draw some powerful evaluations about a source.
Bias is when the creator’s perspective is so strongly for or against something that the information in the source is clearly unbalanced or prejudiced. All sources contain some degree of bias, but it is not always possible to detect it.
Bias can either be extremely positive or extremely negative.
If extremely positive, it is described as “pro-”, or “in favour of”, etc.
If extremely negative, it is described as “anti-”, or “strongly against”, etc.
If you cannot detect a bias, it is described as a “balanced” source.
Look for times in a source where any of the following happen:
If you noticed any of the above in your source, it indicates that the creator has a specific bias about the person or event and wants communicate in a way that positions the audience to see things from the same perspective.
Once you have discovered bias in your source, prove that it exists. Here is how you do it:
Please be aware!
Demonstrating the identification of bias in your writing:
The Gallic Wars has an overt pro-Caesar bias since it portrays him in an obviously positive way, with very little mention of any of his failures.
The Refugee Council of Australia is very biased in favour of refugees since they believe that the Pacific Solution is “illegal” (2007, n.p.).
Andrews has a very one-sided view of the events he describes, which is primarily due to the fact that he is a political activist. This is clear when he describes himself as a victim by saying that his opponents "maliciously assaulted" him (2012, 43).