I host and write a 10 minute new show called CNN 10 and we're teaming up with A T and T s Youth Voices Collective.

It's a program developed to support student expression and to teach writing in journalism skills to young writers.

Collaborating organizations include 8 to 6 national 6 ft of separation and box at L.

Today.

I'd like to talk to you about objectivity in journalism.

That's objectivity in journalism.

And you.

It's from box at Atlanta's home for uncensored team publishing in self expression that we have a question from a student.

Hi, Carl.

How's it going?

My name is Terrell, right?

And I'm from Atlanta.

My question to you is, how can teams make sure that they're reporting objectively and to present all sides of the story?

Thanks.

If your goal is to stay neutral on controversial topics, there are two things you got to keep in mind.

Balance and weight.

Think of it like lifting a pair of dumbbells.

If you want a balanced workout, you need them to weigh the same on CNN 10.

We want to keep our coverage like our diet balanced, but back in my day as a writer, which I was before I was on camera.

I was given an incredibly valuable lesson by an executive, she said.

Don't just balance every controversy, make sure the different sides are weighted the same.

For instance, let's say you're doing a crucial undercover expose on the breed of dog that makes its owners happiest.

If you devote a minute and a half two Chihuahuas extolling all the big benefits of the smallest dogs and then you spend 15 seconds saying that Great Dane owners are howling in protest, you might say the story is balanced.

After all, it has more than one perspective, but it's not weighted the same dog.

You've given 90 seconds toe, one position and 15 to the other.

You've given one argument a leg up, so to speak on the other.

So to cover something objectively, you wanna try to give the opposing sides equal time or at least cover their opposing points equally.

Now let's take a topic that's slightly more serious like World War two.

Shortly before that conflict broke out, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared there would be quote peace in our time with Nazi Germany.

But Even then.

That statement was controversial in the British Parliament because another Briton named Winston Churchill had been warning that Germany was building up its military in preparation for war.

Covering Chamberlain side and Churchill Side would have been a way to objectively explained to a news audience what the controversy was all about.

Their two perspectives were directly opposed to one another, and as far as who was right and who was wrong goes, well, history sorted that out so fast.

Forward to today, let's say a new laws proposed in Congress.

Everyone will agree on that, right?

You could cover the who, what, when, where, why and how of it.

But these air highly emotional and opinionated times we're living in and the moment you include an opinion about the proposal is the moment alarm bells should ring in the head of an objective journalist.

Like most congressional proposals, some will love it, and some will hate it.

So it's up to you, dear reporter, to make sure you talk about the love and the hate, the good its supporters say it will do and the bad its opponents say it will do if you want to stay neutral in your coverage.

One of the greatest challenges and objective journalism isn't covering multiple sides of a controversy without indicating which one you agree with.

If the audience can't tell your Switzerland baby, you've stayed neutral.

You've kept it down the middle on, do you?

Our objective journalist on behalf of CNN 10 and A T and T s youth voices collective.

I'm Coral Jesus.