TRUTH is not always ‘balanced’.
Both-sideism, or False Balance. A thread.
Both-sideism, or False Balance. A thread.
Journalists, in order to appear unbiased may sometimes distort the weightage given to differing viewpoints.
They confuse treating opposing positions fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to
They confuse treating opposing positions fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to
present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information. (Paul Krugman)
A BBC memo 2018: “Be aware of ‘false balance,’” it warns. ”...To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday.”
As deniers of tragedies from the Holocaust to the Civil War to the Parkland shooting prove, both-sideism isn’t just a journalistic problem. But it is in journalism that it is arguably most consequential. (Leonard Pitts)
This kind of misreporting creates a feeling of hopelessness.
That all sides are equal.
Then what’s the point in choosing one over the other?
More often than not, it ends up helping the status quo.
The powerful get to retain their privilege.
That all sides are equal.
Then what’s the point in choosing one over the other?
More often than not, it ends up helping the status quo.
The powerful get to retain their privilege.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
