Bias In Reporting History

History is written by the winners. It is also written by people, and people are biased. Since history can be interpreted in many ways, there is going to be bias in any history that is read. The question is what kind and what does it mean? Historiography is the art of recognizing historical bias and interpreting the information through the bias. There are three broad approaches to writing and interpreting history.

The first, and most common, approach to history is the "traditional" approach. What is traditional depends on where you are what you are studying so I will use United States history as the example. In United States history, the traditional approach is also called the dead white guy history. This is the history that looks at Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc. The traditional approach usually has a positive view of the United States and its history. Most people are familiar with the traditional approach because that was what they were taught in school.

The second approach to history is the "revisionist" approach. This is basically the opposite of the traditional. Revisionist history takes the view of the "losers" in history. The people whose stories are rarely told because they do not have the power in the society. For instance the Native American view of history would be a revisionist view. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is the quintessential revisionist history. Patricia Limerick is a well-known Native American historian who can be considered revisionist.

The third approach to history combines the previous two. The "post-revisionist" approach to history uses both the traditional and revisionist approaches to form a more complete view of history. The post-revisionist is the most difficult of the three because you must take into account both sides of the history. This can be difficult and controversial, but it is also more accurate. Post-revisionist history is not with out bias, but it does attempt to balance things more than the others.

The trick is recognizing what kind of history you are reading. Look for clues like, who is being described with more favorable language and are both sides presented in close to equal space or is one side just casually mentioned. In most cases it is not that difficult to pick up the author's slant. You may have to do some research to find out what kind of history you are being presented. Look into the author. What is there background? Who do they work for? Is there anything in their history that could influence their interpretations.

Once you think you have a pretty good idea what kind of history you are looking at, search for the other side. Try to find the same issues or time period presented in a different approach. See where the different sides agree and where they differ. The most important thing is to get as much information as you can to create your own interpretation of the history. If you recognized the original approach, searched the opposite and used both to form an opinion you have a future in history.