|
The expression about balance is mostly about the time (TV/radio), space (print) or resources (# of reporters, cameras, etc) that an organization will apply/dedicate to a story. Technically anything that they can get someone to say, or do, or otherwise document is a "fact" (So and so said....). The complaint in the last 20 or so years has been a form of "imbalance" that is hard to truly balance, and easy to abuse. It has to do with the relative credibility or authoritative quality of sources. If I discuss on a talk show the effect of a bailout on the markets, and I manage to get a Nobel prize winning economist, can I really "balance" that by inviting some political hack? Do I need someone at least as credentialed in order to balance it? If that is the criteria, I either have to run shows with only the highly accomplished, and no countering point of view, or I can't present arguments which are now also well countered.
Furthermore, how much time to I dedicate to a candidate who can't seem to generate, by any measure, apparent interest of the electorate. Not in contributions of time, money, or in answering polls (think Ron Paul). What is balanced in these environments? Furthermore, what questions do I ask? Only those asked by their opponents? Do I ask about when they stopped beating their wife or is their wife beating unrelated to their economic positions?
Objectivity, balance, fairness, these concepts have been abused by the right wing to beat down confidence and trust in the media. They have also been the basis of extremely shoddy work by the media as well. Easier to bring on two paid loud mouths with only scant demonstrated expertise in a subject (think Ann Coulter) to opine at length, than to find two experts to actually discuss a topic. And how far over the heads of my viewers can I talk? NPR seems to run with fear from discussing in any detail any science/technology issues because of some perception that the listeners are too ignorant to follow along. They'll interrupt an interview to have the person explain the meaning of "pi". (But let some poet speak at length about their Haiku's without the briefest of definitions).
The station/paper/show I'm interested in achieves balance this way. Pick a person to "make a case" on a particular topic. But insist that they reference/support that case with some history/fact/calculations/theory. People who HAVE done that should be chosen to be published/broadcast. When complaints surface about bias, then compare the availability of people who have done such things. It will be extremely small. The current 24/7 channels are hungry for "content" because of this problem. Which is how you end up with talking heads opining at length without any real knowledge or supporting analysis.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
