Journalism is supposed to present facts without bias or favoritism.Many claim most media are leftist and liberal, which is a pretty easy claim to back. And even those who lean toward the left should acknowledge this is not a good thing for either side of the argument. Debate is what forms good opinions. Good opinions form good leaders. Good leaders form good decisions.But this bias can also be seen in “lesser” forms of journalism. This may not seem to matter, but if a method seeps into modern media — even at a basic sports or entertainment level — it can seep into the rest of news-gathering.The most obvious bias lately comes from the biggest national sports news organization — ESPN.It has long been argued ESPN is a poor company. Blogs like Deadspin have been created pretty much on the premise that ESPN is not reporting the news.And the Masters Golf Tournament made this clear.Most people love a hero. We crowd movie theaters when a new Batman film is released. We read books about Harry Potter, an unlikely hero.So we love Tiger Woods, a hero in his own right.Well, ESPN has not missed this fact.So when it was time for the Masters again, ESPN made no bones about who it was choosing to win.The poll question on the Web site before the tournament asked who was going to win the Masters.The choices?Tiger Woods. Someone else.Sure, it was kind of funny. Sure, Woods is the obvious choice to win the Masters. Sure, this isn’t going to be the downfall of American journalism.But it didn’t stop there.After some less-than-perfect shooting, it was clear Woods might not win the green jacket after all.So ESPN changed its poll question. The new one?Does Tiger Woods have a chance at coming back and winning the Masters?Even after the whole game was said and done — Tiger needing to go to Men’s Warehouse if he wanted a jacket — ESPN continued to push the issue with columns and articles.I feel sorry for poor Angel Cabrera, whose amazing performance took the green jacket, because more people know Woods lost than know Cabrera won.The inconsistencies in golf journalism may not seem like the most important of topics. But at the most basic level, millions of people pay good money to receive biased information.It doesn’t matter if it involves President Obama, Brad Pitt or Woods — our media love heroes. Our media love big stories. Our media love our money.Thus bias and favoritism like this continues to exist and will continue to exist so long as we eat it up.The Masters could have been far more exciting had the viewer been watching, say, all the golfers — especially the five who finished before Woods and the three who tied him — than just our gilded hero.And our political decisions could be more informed if we had rounded information on everyone, rather than just a constant spotlight on a select few.Journalism, at its core, is not supposed to be biased. But it is. It is up to the consumer to decide if we want to keep it that way.No one will serve steak if everyone is a vegetarian. And no one will serve heroes if we decide we don’t want them.Travis Andrews is a 21-year-old English senior from Metairie.—-Contact Travis Andrews at [email protected]