Balanced reporting might be false
Too much of a good thing creates an imbalance, including balance. Ironic as it sounds, even when balanced reporting is the objective, too much balance can have the opposite effect. This phenomenon, increasingly spotlighted in this historically unhappy presidential campaign season, is called “false balance.”
Balanced reporting is considered good journalism, and one of its stalwart ethical goals. It’s also rare in this world of blitz online media — so much of its content created by untrained, amateur, and biased individuals or organizations with specific purposes in mind. So local, national and international stories in newspapers staffed by journalism grads (imperfect, but well-intentioned) have become the vital minority; society needs somewhere to go with some hope of objective reporting.
Balancing the scales for objective reporting doesn’t always mean giving equal weight to all sides.
False balance, sometimes called false equivalency, is a disparaging reference to presenting each side of an issue as equally credible, whether or not factual evidence bears that out. False balance tends to be unintentional, a risk of overkill in the desire for balanced reporting.
In politics an example is comparing the negative aspects of two candidates, giving equal weight to minor vs. major deficiencies, so the net effect is unfair comparison — apples to oranges, or apples to chuck roast. In scientific articles it may be citing opposing opinions of two experts, when one has far more experience in the subject, or more peers who agree with her conclusions. As described in University of California-Berkeley’s “Understanding Science Toolkit”:
“Journalism and policies that falsely grant all viewpoints the same scientific legitimacy effectively undo one of the main aims of science: to weigh the evidence.”
Regardless of subject, whether or not the difference in weight is known to the writer (professional journalist, blogger, individual, or organization), the effect on readers is the same: an impression not supported by the weight of evidence. Imbalance.
Even false balance requires balancing. Consider a point made by a New York Times editor in the Sept. 10 edition:
“The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates.”
She implies a conundrum; readers need all the facts without false equivalencies, but how do writers achieve that without at least subconsciously applying some of their own judgments (while working quickly to make deadline)? Readers want to know the pea and watermelon don’t have equal weight, but they don’t want the writer’s judgment substituted for their own.
Achieving balance is a delicate balance. But a few questions aid the pursuit of truth: What expertise does each person or source have — is it directly related to the subject, educated, and experienced? Who is presenting this information; is the writer impartial? What objective proof does each side offer? How does this item or fact fit into the big picture? What questions does this point answer, and what questions does it generate? What are the criticisms of this viewpoint, and of the critic in turn?
Most issues are not binary. There may be two sides to a coin, but generally it takes more than two to illuminate both persons and issues (although not all points are relevant; some can distract from the topic). We can look for those. A hint that research is nearing completion is when additional sources and facts keep referring back to those you’ve already gathered; when the journey for answers ceases to be linear, and becomes circular, despite using different sources.
Even with Pulitzer-winning journalism, achieving topical balance generally requires more than one piece of writing. That means readers as much as writers. To understand an issue in its complexity or develop informed political judgment requires dedication. Quick headlines, Tweets, scanning story briefs, or worse — reading others’ comments on stories — provide only a few bits of a thousand-piece puzzle, and tend to skew the true picture. Forming an opinion on any issue or person requires multiple stories, sources, and a dogged pursuit of verifiable information to determine what weight to give each piece of evidence.
“Don’t confuse symmetry with balance.” — Tom Robbins
• • •
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at Sholeh@cdapress.com.