Favouritism: How Bias Impacts What We See and Hear

Ever watched a match and felt the referee was a little too nice to one team? Or read a news story that seemed to favor one side? That’s favouritism at work. It’s the subtle (or sometimes obvious) push that shapes opinions, outcomes, and even careers. Understanding how it shows up helps you see past the surface and make smarter judgments.

Spotting Favouritism in Sports

Sports are a hotbed for bias. Take the recent Asia Cup clash where Bangladesh beat Hong Kong by 7 wickets. Some fans argued the pitch conditions favored Bangladesh’s batting style, while others pointed to the umpire’s quick decisions on LBW appeals. Whether it’s a home crowd cheering louder for one side or a commentator highlighting only the star players of a popular team, those cues can tilt perception.

Team selections also reveal hidden preferences. In the Kolkata Derby, Mohun Bagan’s line‑up got extra hype in post‑match analysis, while East Bengal’s strategic moves were barely mentioned. This isn’t always malicious; media outlets naturally cover stories that attract clicks. The trick is to check multiple sources and ask why a certain narrative keeps popping up.

When betting or fantasy leagues are involved, favouritism can cost you money. If a columnist consistently predicts wins for a favorite team, they might be swayed by personal loyalty rather than data. Look for balanced stats—run rates, head‑to‑head records, player form—rather than sentiment‑driven opinions.

Favouritism in Politics and Media

Politics is perhaps the most obvious arena where bias thrives. Amit Shah’s recent call for better coordination between police and central agencies sounded like a push for unity, but critics noted the phrasing subtly framed the agencies as a “team” needing a single leader’s direction—essentially favouring one power center.

Media outlets echo this pattern. A discussion about the Times of India’s perceived bias illustrates how editorial choices can paint a picture that aligns with certain political ideologies. When headlines spotlight one viewpoint and downplay another, readers unknowingly adopt that slant.

Spotting political favouritism starts with checking the language. Words like “strongly supports” or “unquestionably responsible” often signal a tilt. Compare coverage of the same event across multiple platforms; discrepancies reveal where bias hides.

Even in legal reporting, favouritism appears. The Supreme Court’s decision to defer Yatin Oza’s plea against a Gujarat High Court verdict was framed by some outlets as a “victory for due process,” while others called it “political cushioning.” The framing shapes public perception of justice.

So, how do you protect yourself? First, read beyond headlines. Dive into the body text, look for data, and ask who benefits from a certain angle. Second, diversify your news diet—mix regional, national, and international sources. Finally, trust your gut; if a story feels overly one‑sided, it probably is.

Favouritism isn’t always harmful—loyalty can inspire fan culture and drive community spirit. The key is to recognize when it crosses the line from passion to prejudice, especially when decisions that affect many are at stake.

Next time you watch a game, read a political update, or scroll through a news feed, ask yourself: “Who’s being favoured here, and why?” That simple question cuts through the noise and puts you back in charge of your own view.