Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

There has been much chatter over how the media performed in its initial coverage of the shooting of Trump at his rally in Butler, PA on July 13 — including AllSides’ initial headline.

Outlets rated Lean Left by AllSides did not initially use words such as “gunfire,” “shots,” or “shooting” in their headlines, while media outlets rated Right or Lean Right were quicker to report that there was possible gunfire, shots, or to use the term “assassination attempt.”

RELATED: Media Scrutinized for Coverage of Shooting at Trump Rally

AllSides’ initial headline when the news broke was, “Trump Apparently Shot in Ear at Rally.” When the shooting was confirmed by law enforcement, we later updated it to, “Trump Grazed by Bullet at Rally in Pennsylvania.”

Commenters on our Instagram post featuring the initial headline accused us of bias for using the term “apparently,” seeming to argue that it was clear what happened and our qualifier was not warranted. 

However, it's best practice to use the term "apparently" before there are any official statements from law enforcement. At the same time, journalists must convey what is observable while waiting for confirmation. 

When we published our first headline, we had the firsthand account of an AllSides editor who was on site at the rally, as well as video evidence of the moment. Though ostensible from the available video, it wasn’t yet confirmed that Trump was struck by a bullet, so being very definitive about what object hit Trump would have been irresponsible — hence, the qualifier “apparently.” At the same time, not relaying what we saw with our own eyes (an apparent bullet) could have been a bias by omission. 

Based on all of this, AllSides reported what was observable by us and added the qualifier “apparently” until there were official statements and evidence to confirm what happened.

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists have an ethical obligation to “verify information before releasing it” and to “use original sources whenever possible.” A video is an original source of information.

Therefore, we believe we struck a good balance. Media outlets that didn’t use the words gunshot, shots, or shooting in initial coverage were perceived as biased, giving the perception that they were downplaying what was clearly observable from video evidence and first hand witnesses. AllSides relayed what we were able to reasonably observe from existing sources of evidence and qualified information that was unverified by law enforcement at the time (that it was a bullet/shooting).

Many media outlets did not describe what was clearly observable in the source video. For instance, The Associated Press (Lean Left) tweeted at 6:23pm ET, “Donald Trump has been escorted off the stage by Secret Service during a rally after loud noises ring out in the crowd.” This headline could be seen as showing bias by omission by not including that Trump was bleeding and that he was apparently hit by an object. CNN’s (Lean Left) headline, posted several minutes after the shooting at 6:21 pm ET, could similarly be seen as biased, as it stated, “Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after he falls at rally.” This headline could be seen as showing slant — he didn’t merely fall, but rather clearly appeared to have been hit by an object.

This illustrates the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. A primary source of information is a raw, original, unaltered record that has not been edited or analyzed by other sources. The initial videos of Trump being shot are primary sources of information, and therefore can be relied upon to be described in reporting. A secondary source is citation, commentary, interpretation of, or an analysis of a primary source; a news article.

Journalists ought to carefully report what they can gather from a primary source of information (video evidence and eyewitness accounts) while also waiting for confirmation from a secondary source (such as a police report/law enforcement statement). Many outlets seemed slow to report what seemed obvious from the video — that Trump was grazed by a bullet. AllSides believes we walked the line well. 

We want to hear from you. Have feedback? Send it to feedback@allsides.com.

Julie Mastrine is the Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings at AllSides. She has a Lean Right bias.

Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center bias) contributed.

Media Bias, Trump Assassination Attempt, Donald Trump