The distorting reality of ‘false balance’ in the media

[n2doc]

By Katrina vanden Heuvel

False equivalence in the media — giving equal weight to unsupported or even discredited claims for the sake of appearing impartial — is not unusual. But a major media organization taking meaningful steps to do something about it is.

Earlier this month, the BBC’s governing body issued a report assessing the BBC’s impartiality in covering scientific topics. When it comes to an issue like climate change, the report concluded, not all viewpoints share the same amount of scientific substance. Giving equal time and weight to a wide range of arguments without regard to their credibility risks creating a “false balance” in the public debate.

This is a lesson for all media on both sides of the Atlantic — and not just when it comes to science coverage. There are many sides to almost every story, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically equal.

Unfortunately, too much of the media has become increasingly fixated on finding “balance,” even if it means presenting fiction on par with fact. If media outlets wanted to present an accurate account of the climate change “debate,” for instance, they would have to follow comedian John Oliver’s lead and host a “statistically representative” face-off with three climate change deniers up against 97 scientists armed with proof. Instead, they contort themselves to find “balance,” and we’re left with segments like “Is the climate change threat exaggerated?” — presented on the always reliable Fox News — which promised to “weigh the evidence on both sides of the divisive topic.” It’s no wonder that only 60 percent of Americans know that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring — and almost 30 percent aren’t sure if there is any scientific consensus.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-the-distorting-reality-of-false-balance-in-the-media/2014/07/14/6def5706-0b81-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html

And exhibit 1 would be her own newspaper.

[merrily]

1. I've heard that, once upon a time, journalists reported actual news and did so

with a degree of objectivity. That was back in the day, when TV anchors had started as newspaper journalists, instead of as "TV personalities."

Now, who knows what on earth they're doing? Hosting a show in which two idiot guests disagree with each other, sometimes talking over each other, is not journalism, nor is it balanced.

[zeemike]

7. It is theater.

And back in the days the news room was independent from the networks...now they are one with them, and so they give us entertainment.

[Dustlawyer]

16. According to a Florida Court of Appeals, Fox News is labeled "Entertainment," and therefore not

subject to having to tell the truth!

Protest with me to get the money out of politics so that we can bust up these media oligarchs and require "Truth" in the news.

September 13th - November 4th (Election Day) and beyond I am trying to organize protests in as many cities and towns as possible to get the money out of our electoral process by demanding Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections. We can make these same culpable TV and Radio stations air the campaign ads as a public service for using the People's airwaves under license (I love the irony of RW Talk Shows having these inserted in their breaks)!

Please help spread the word as this will help us on all fronts from Women's rights to the Environment! Anything the corporate billionaires have been blocking with their campaign bribes will benefit is we can raise a real big protest. I also like that we can use their money against them during the final stretch of the campaign. The more they raise the more we can show they are bought off! LETS DO THIS!!!

[zeemike]

18. I am with you on that.

If we don't get the money out of politics nothing will change really

[merrily]

20. Yep. Infotainment, with the "info" bit being pretty shallow.

[el_bryanto]

14. Yes back in the good old days of "You supply the pictures; I'll supply the war."

I'm not sure journalism has ever been that pure, but I am sure they have always wanted to believe the mythology about themselves. It's like TV shows about making TV shows, or movies about making movies - with notable exceptions they usually do paint a pretty rosy view of the people who do that sort of thing.

Bryant

[merrily]

19. Things do tend to look rosier in the rear view mirror. But, it is a

matter of degree and consistency as well.

Wm Randolph Hearst was an exception. There were so many little, independently owned newspapers, competing with each other, each one putting out a special edition when there was breaking news. Even little towns had several competitors. And reporters and photogs did cover wars--and not simply "embedded" with US troops, a term I learned during the Iraq invasion.

Now that only a handful of huge corporations control most media, it is different. What is good for General Motors may or may not be good for America, but America is good for General Motors stock sales. Or Disney's stock sales. And that colors what passes for our "news."

Things that become big stories today would have been considered not worth covering at all or maybe worthy of a gossip column sixty or seventy years ago.

On the other hand, media then was complicit in concealing things like JFK's extra marital activities and the extent of FDR's paralysis. So, maybe it's that pesky rear view mirror thing.

[starroute]

2. If they really wanted "balance" they could present alternative solutions

For example, whether climate change is best addressed through government regulations or through appeals to the free market.

The fact that they persist in showcasing climate change deniers when the real debate has moved beyond that shows they aren't really interested in balance but in serving the interests of their corporate sponsors.

[Jim Lane]

3. It's not "her own newspaper" in a meaningful sense

Katrina vanden Heuvel edits The Nation magazine, but when it comes to the Washington Post, she's just an op-ed columnist. You're right that it's "her own newspaper" in the sense that she presumably cashes checks the Post sends her. More significant, though, is that she has no control over its editorial policies.

I was glad to note that, in the linked piece, she reports the IPCC's criticism of the Post and other mainstream media. At least she's doing what she can.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Agree - thanks for pointing that out! :)

[Fred Sanders]

4. In a two party state it is the profitable duty of the media to keep The Game close, or else who

would watch?
And with new billions of ad dollars rolling in it is even more imperative to get both sides to open the bank doors and shower the media with ad money in order to win.

[Taitertots]

5. I'm sick of "balance" being two fictions passed off as truth

While the truth is ignored completely.

[Moostache]

6. This is one of the root causes of the rot within this nation...

I loved the skit with 97 climate scientists yelling down the 3 climate change deniers...THAT is what we should have on a continual basis.
BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!! (It's not too late, though the hour is getting late...)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to broadcast media

Fox Noise could go its merry way.

[Moostache]

15. That may be true, but they would not be unchallenged...

and it would also end the marathon Right Wing hate-fest on most AM radio across the country...

[kentuck]

9. This "false balance" has almost destroyed journalism.

It's as if there is no reality and no facts.

[Enthusiast]

12. Plus one! No reality and no facts.

[cheyanne]

10. Add to the truthiness syndrome: polarization of the parties

It's not polarization, it's radicalization of the right.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. They don't want some of the purchasers of their sponsors' products to be confronted with their own

stupidity and feel bad about themselves while contemplating the next commercial break. I think it's almost always about money, even when it comes to journalistic integrity.

[HoosierCowboy]

17. Forget Both Sides of the Argument...

The entire credibility of the MSM ought to be the one question that really needs to be asked. Can you believe anything that comes out of the MSM?

If they told us that it was high noon, we'd look out the window to see if the Sun was shining. Any time engaging with this corporate media is a total waste of time. It needs to die, and it is dying, these eruptions of self doubt are only allowed for us to "give it one more chance to clean up its act".
No thanks...