The Myth of Journalistic Balance
Andy* relates a little, but telling moment with Al Gore revealing some wisdom. He (Gore) was talking to some news-type person on some morning news-type program when she confronted him with an anti-global-warming editorial by a well-known global-warming critic/denier — well-known to the audience and tiresomely well-known to Gore. Here's the part of Gore's response that caught my eye:
But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.
Just before that I had read Andy's comment about
[…] reporters who use discredited climate skeptics in their reporting for the sake of simply presenting an "opposing view" in order to make global warming a "story".
That struck me: the need for "story". Journalism, in my naive view, can tell interesting stories about interesting subjects, report interesting news, fill one in on background. I've always presumed that the thing that makes such stories journalistic is the story-teller's skill at relating facts, events, and opinions received accurately and without injecting personal opinions. Most journalists take this stance very seriously, too.
But still, there's that persistent need for "story". Most newspapers and most broadcast news are commercial, a product packaged to attract attention and sell some other product. Whether it's true or not, conventional wisdom seems to be that controversy makes a good "story" and sells more soap. But suppose there is no real controversy to a story?
Easy: manufacture the controversy by presenting "opposing viewpoints". It matters little whether said viewpoints are credible so long as they are opposing, the more opposing the better for the controversy, of course. Think for a moment about hot-button topics, of which there are plenty in today's headlines: the war in Iraq, child health care, social security reform, "gay marriage", ex-gay therapy, gay rights ("gay, gay, gay" seems to be a best-selling story these days, but maybe I just notice those headlines preferentially). While these subjects certainly elicit differences of opinions among right-thinking people, are those differences accurately reflected in the reports of "controversy" that reach the "stories" in today's news?
In many cases, no. Polls these days are very good at sampling opinion — unless the poll is designed to "prove" some point — and can give us an accurate measure of the balance of opinion. One can compare poll results indicating where the balance point is in a current controversy and find that it rarely is the same as the apparent balance in the "controversy" as presented in a "story".
Global warming can provide a convenient and relatively clear example. Al Gore and the IPCC, this year's Nobel Prize winners, present strong evidence that human-driven climate change is a serious problem. "Sixty-two percent of respondents believe that life on earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming."# There are exceedingly few credible scientists who still question the facts and their interpretation, but the "controversy" reigns in news headlines. Giving equal time to a representative of "each side" of the "controversy" severely distorts the picture of how much controversy there actually is.
That's precisely what's so pernicious about this "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach in the name of journalistic balance: it skews the perception of the readers/viewers. Giving equal time to "both sides" gives them equal weight in the mind of the reader/viewer. For the journalist to claim that the "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach is merely objectively reporting the newsworthy opinion of others is a serious cop-out because it creates an inaccurate representation of the story that the journalist is reporting (at the same time that it creates useful controversy).
It could well be the "even-handed approach" that gives the modern-day media its conservative bias. Take any number of these "controversial" issues where it turns out that the majority of Americans take one viewpoint by a large margin, say 70% vs. 30%, and let the story be written. By the time an extreme view is heard from "both sides", the reader/viewer will average those opinions and mistakenly conclude that the average American view is closer to 50/50 and that the debate is highly controversial.**
I emphatically do not propose that the media have an obligation to represent the majority viewpoint. In fact, I'd support the contrary position, provided that individual reporters avoided the faux-balance approach and presented actual opinions and facts and could distinguish between them. I do feel that honest journalists have an obligation to report opinions in a way that does not give a hand to manufacturing controversy where none exists.
———-
*Andy Towle, "Al Gore Tired of Opposing Discredited Climate Skeptics", Towleroad, 6 November 2007.
# "Americans Consider Global Warming An Urgent Threat, According To Poll", ScienceDaily, 4 October 2007.
**I don't mean to suggest that the majority view is by any means the correct one, merely that it is the majority view and should be presented accurately and objectively as such. I argue for presenting minority views, but against manufacturing controversy.
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 at 03.06
Permalink
I come at it from a different angle than the interesting "story" concept of your post, Jeff.
What you're hitting on has roots deep in our society's notions about democracy, equal rights and how every citizen gets a vote. Society is deeply divided along a fault line usually defined by quality and amount of education.
The problem is that many people, often but not always the less well educated, have little or no appreciation of the difference between provable facts and opinions. Hence, they believe down to their toenails that their opinions are just as valid and worthy of being heard as others' facts. They easily conflate the right to express their opinion with the right to have their own facts.
Our local newspaper from time to time runs letters from a small group of anti-fluoridation zealots. In past years, these folks have characterized fluoridation of the water supply as the result of a communist plot, the mindless elitism of purveyors of junk science and a conspiracy by chemical companies, among other things. They often cite faulty statistics provided by other zealots and the testimony of crackpots they accept — and present — as scientific experts.
They claim they or people they know suffer all manner of aches, pains and maladies attributable to fluoride poisoning.
The newspaper usually runs these letters because these anti-fluoridation people have a right to express their opinions, and, evidently, other readers have a responsibility to divine who's dealing in facts and who is blowing smoke. And besides, the zealots get really angry and badmouth the paper as being in cahoots with the fluoride fiends or as being otherwise biased and unfair to them. They will also write letters and make angry phone calls complaining about their letters not being published.
All that despite a wealth of scientific evidence of the overall benefits of fluoridation, the extreme rarity of any serious problems caused by it and decades of real-life experience supporting those findings.
The story angle is probably a factor at times. But at basis there's a widespread problem of lack of education or poor education, and a lack of logical thinking.
on Thursday, 8 November 2007 at 06.24
Permalink
Gore: **…you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.**
This is a bit of a gimmick on Gore's part. There is some serious skepticism about whether our current bout of global warming is anthropogenic. But, Gore would like to put these skeptics under the bus with the flat earth brigade.
on Thursday, 8 November 2007 at 12.15
Permalink
Of course it's a bit of a gimmick, because Gore is fighting a rhetorical war with shrill naysayers who exaggerate and distort most every datum they can lay their hands on. The "debate" is not scientific because scientific consensus has been reached over the last twenty years, a conclusion largely concealed by journalists who prefer to report the manufactured controversy with "balanced" viewpoints that are not, in fact, balanced around the actual center of gravity in the "debate".
Your observation, SW, about many people not distinguishing fact from opinion is very useful, although I need to think about your conclusions. It's something that seems very deeply buried in human nature, and the distinction may have been created only recently in history. People still tend to judge "truth" by the apparent strength of conviction of the person selling a particular opinion.
Why is it that my response always boils down to this: it's just more work for Ars Hermeneutica.
on Friday, 9 November 2007 at 01.29
Permalink
RSF, Gore would indeed like to put those who scoff at global warming because of political and financial motives under the bus with flat Earthers. It has to do with the quality of information and sources of information.
on Friday, 9 November 2007 at 09.18
Permalink
"…Gore is fighting a rhetorical war with shrill naysayers who exaggerate and distort…"
All the more reason for him not to exaggerate and distort, since his facts are such a slam dunk, or so he thinks.
I don't find Gore's view especially compelling. That the earth' climate is warming is pretty much a 100% thing, but if it is entirely human caused is much less so. We still don't have a handle on the Sun's cycles. And that human effort can change this is unlikely.
Everyone thinks they have the facts to uphold their opinion. It's like the poll where 90% of the people thought their morals were above average.
We get a few facts, then we launch a religion.
on Saturday, 10 November 2007 at 17.03
Permalink
Not being a scientist, RSF, I rely on what those with the knack, the book learning, the hands-on experience and the credentials to provide expert opinions on things such as global warming. So does Gore.
Maybe all Gore's effort regarding global warming is just a ploy, to help advance his political career. Maybe he stands to make millions or billions off it it. The evidence seems to point strongly away from these things, but what does evidence mean, really?
So, let's forget respected scientists and Gore for a moment and strive for an interlude of lucidity through the application of seat-of-the-pants logic.
Humans pump billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year, year after year. They've been doing this for centuries, but the volume has escalated exponentially over the past 250 years. They take oil and coal from the ground and turn them into several chemicals and a whole lot of smoke particles. Common sense tells me that over time this inevitably will have health and climatological consequences.
This isn't a religion. It's common sense.
on Sunday, 11 November 2007 at 07.25
Permalink
**They take oil and coal from the ground and turn them into several chemicals and a whole lot of smoke particles. Common sense tells me that over time this inevitably will have health and climatological consequences.**
I can't argue against this. The question is how radical we should be in attacking the problem. There is some evidence that the pollution has increased the reflection of solar radiation, and the earth would be even warmer without it, even taking into account the greenhouse effect from CO2.
Even if we make a herculean effort, and cut our emissions in half, we seem to still be on track to turn all our oil and coal into emissions. It is a matter of time (which may make a difference).
Ninety eight to ninety six percent of CO2 outgassing is from natural sources.
The computer models of climate change from greenhouse gases have very little descriptive success, either in past or present predictions.
on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 07.49
Permalink
**This isn't a religion. It's common sense.**
Common sense tells me that technological progress got us into this global warming debate, and technological progress will get us out. The reductions called for by Gore et al will reduce our economic growth, will reduce our technological progress, and possibly our chances of finding a way out of excessive CO2 production.
(In Gore's defense, he does acknowledge this, and he thinks we can progress and still cut our emissions.)
At one time common sense told us the gods controlled everything, so if something went wrong, we needed to make the proper supplication to the gods.
Now common sense seems to be that the government controls everything, so if something goes wrong, we need to make the proper supplication to the central authorities, overseen by Al Gore and his greater sensibilities.