Friday, September 24, 2004
A Question of Balance
Something that has been nagging at me for a while is the news media's ideal of "balance". I'm coming to the conclusion that it has become the enemy of truth.
Let me explain. Take a pair of hypothetical political issues. Issue A is complex and indeterminate, perhaps a matter of economic policy. There are different opinions on the best way to deal with Issue A, and in the absence of objective evidence they are equally valid opinions to hold and decisions will largely be down to what values on holds. Issue A works well with a media determined to give a balanced view, a range of opinions will be shown and the electorate can make an informed and reasonable decision upon it.
Now look at issue B. This is a more clear cut issue, perhaps something to do with the environment. Issue B has some clear cut facts. An event has happened and there are a choice of approaches of how to deal with it. Now if all the approaches suggested are valid and reasonable then Issue B can be handled in a balanced way too. However what happens if a political party decide to use Issue B to promote a policy that has been tried before and failed to deal with the issue, or what if they decide to claim that the event never happened at all. Now we have a problem.
The problem is this, balanced reporting means that an outright blatant lie must be be given equal time to the truth. It must be treated in exactly the same way as the truth, if it is challenged then the truth must be challenged too. When a journalist attempts to challenge a lie they will be attacked as being biased.
That's bad enough, but we've gone further over the last few decades. Now unscrupulous politicians have seen how effective the big lie can be, and they will approach Issue A by inventing a big lie that, if true, would conclusively prove their case and then challenging their opponents to disprove it in a situation where they aren't allowed a neutral referee. Instead of an issue that people will see as something inconclusive they now have a clear cut polarised issue that people can be mobilised around.
We've lost the idea of objective reality in politics. Any lie is seen as just as worthwhile as a truth if it is presented with passion and commitment. If the voter doesn't know the subject matter they will simply see two sides saying "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't". If this was limited to a small number of issues then we could do a bit of research and make up our minds reasonably. However it's the standard technique of a huge number of politicians of all views. There just isn't the time to check it all. A lot of people now seem to think that objective reality plays no part in politics, what they choose to believe is as valid as factual evidence.
I'm pretty well up to speed on a wide range of political issues, and I feel I'm drowning in deliberate misinformation. I find that very scary. The more I learn the less I know, other than that an awful lot of people are prepared to lie in order to get their own way.
Let me explain. Take a pair of hypothetical political issues. Issue A is complex and indeterminate, perhaps a matter of economic policy. There are different opinions on the best way to deal with Issue A, and in the absence of objective evidence they are equally valid opinions to hold and decisions will largely be down to what values on holds. Issue A works well with a media determined to give a balanced view, a range of opinions will be shown and the electorate can make an informed and reasonable decision upon it.
Now look at issue B. This is a more clear cut issue, perhaps something to do with the environment. Issue B has some clear cut facts. An event has happened and there are a choice of approaches of how to deal with it. Now if all the approaches suggested are valid and reasonable then Issue B can be handled in a balanced way too. However what happens if a political party decide to use Issue B to promote a policy that has been tried before and failed to deal with the issue, or what if they decide to claim that the event never happened at all. Now we have a problem.
The problem is this, balanced reporting means that an outright blatant lie must be be given equal time to the truth. It must be treated in exactly the same way as the truth, if it is challenged then the truth must be challenged too. When a journalist attempts to challenge a lie they will be attacked as being biased.
That's bad enough, but we've gone further over the last few decades. Now unscrupulous politicians have seen how effective the big lie can be, and they will approach Issue A by inventing a big lie that, if true, would conclusively prove their case and then challenging their opponents to disprove it in a situation where they aren't allowed a neutral referee. Instead of an issue that people will see as something inconclusive they now have a clear cut polarised issue that people can be mobilised around.
We've lost the idea of objective reality in politics. Any lie is seen as just as worthwhile as a truth if it is presented with passion and commitment. If the voter doesn't know the subject matter they will simply see two sides saying "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't". If this was limited to a small number of issues then we could do a bit of research and make up our minds reasonably. However it's the standard technique of a huge number of politicians of all views. There just isn't the time to check it all. A lot of people now seem to think that objective reality plays no part in politics, what they choose to believe is as valid as factual evidence.
I'm pretty well up to speed on a wide range of political issues, and I feel I'm drowning in deliberate misinformation. I find that very scary. The more I learn the less I know, other than that an awful lot of people are prepared to lie in order to get their own way.
# posted by Eric @ 1:30 PM 
