Balanced News: Is ‘Both Sides’ a Betrayal?

The pursuit of balanced news is a noble one, but too often, it leads to a diluted and ultimately unhelpful product. News organizations, in their quest to appear unbiased, can fall into traps that distort reality and mislead the public. Are we really serving the public by presenting false equivalencies?

The False God of ‘Both Sides’

The most common mistake is the obsessive need to present “both sides” of every issue, regardless of the factual basis or the weight of evidence. This approach, while seemingly fair, often leads to false equivalencies. Not every opinion is created equal. For example, giving equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers creates the illusion of a debate where one doesn’t truly exist. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Presenting a dissenting viewpoint as equally valid undermines the scientific consensus and misleads the public.

I’ve seen this firsthand. We ran into this exact issue at my previous firm. We had a client, a local news station here in Atlanta, that was struggling with ratings. They decided to implement a “balanced” approach to all their reporting, aiming to appeal to a wider audience. The result? A watered-down product that alienated their core audience and failed to attract new viewers. Their ratings actually declined.

This obsession with “balance” also extends to political reporting. Consider the coverage of the recent Georgia voting law changes. While it’s important to present the arguments of both Democrats and Republicans, it’s equally important to contextualize those arguments with factual information about voter turnout, election integrity, and the history of voter suppression in the state. Simply presenting both sides without this context allows misinformation to flourish. The Reuters news service does a better job of this, often including detailed background information alongside quotes from various political actors.

Context is King (and Queen)

Lack of context is another major pitfall in the pursuit of balanced reporting. News organizations often present facts without providing the necessary background information to understand their significance. This can lead to misinterpretations and a distorted view of reality. Let’s say a news outlet reports that unemployment in Fulton County rose by 0.5% last month. Without providing context – such as the overall unemployment rate, the national average, or the reasons behind the increase – the statistic is essentially meaningless. Was it a seasonal fluctuation? Were there major layoffs at a local company like Delta? Or was it a sign of a broader economic downturn?

The need for context extends beyond economic data. It’s crucial in reporting on complex social issues, legal cases, and scientific discoveries. For example, when reporting on a trial at the Fulton County Superior Court, it’s not enough to simply present the arguments of the prosecution and defense. The reporter must also explain the relevant laws (perhaps O.C.G.A. Section 16-5-1, regarding aggravated assault), the burden of proof, and the potential consequences of a conviction. Without this context, the public cannot properly understand the proceedings or make informed judgments.

Here’s what nobody tells you: adding context sometimes means sacrificing the appearance of neutrality. It requires the reporter to make judgments about what information is most relevant and important. But isn’t that what good journalism is all about?

The Myth of Objectivity

Many believe that true objectivity is attainable, but I disagree. Every journalist brings their own biases and perspectives to their work, whether they realize it or not. The key is not to eliminate these biases entirely (an impossible task), but to be aware of them and to strive for fairness and accuracy. This means challenging your own assumptions, seeking out diverse perspectives, and being transparent about your sources and methods. It also means being willing to admit when you’re wrong. Perhaps consulting policy experts can help.

Some will argue that this approach is too subjective, that it opens the door to partisan bias. They’ll say that the news media should simply report the facts and let the public decide. But this is a naive view of how information works. Facts don’t speak for themselves. They need to be interpreted, contextualized, and presented in a way that makes them understandable and meaningful. And that process inevitably involves subjective judgments. A Pew Research Center study found that people’s perceptions of news bias are strongly influenced by their own political beliefs. In other words, what one person considers “objective” reporting, another person may see as biased.

We had a client last year who was a local politician. He insisted we present him as being completely neutral on a particularly contentious issue. We told him that complete neutrality would make him look weak and out of touch. Instead, we advised him to clearly state his values and principles, and then explain how his position on the issue aligned with those values. It worked. He came across as authentic and principled, even to those who disagreed with him.

Prioritize Accuracy Over Perception

Ultimately, the most important thing is to prioritize factual accuracy and clear sourcing. If a news organization is more concerned with appearing balanced than with getting the facts right, it’s failing its readers. This means rigorously fact-checking all claims, even those that align with your own beliefs. It means being transparent about your sources and methods, so that readers can evaluate the information for themselves. And it means being willing to correct errors promptly and publicly.

Consider the coverage of the recent debate over school board policies in Cobb County. Some news outlets focused on the “culture war” aspects of the debate, highlighting the most extreme viewpoints on both sides. Other outlets, such as the Associated Press, took a more measured approach, focusing on the specific policies being debated, the legal challenges they faced, and the potential impact on students. Which approach was more helpful to the public? I’d argue the latter, because it prioritized accuracy and context over sensationalism and perceived balance.

Here’s the truth: getting the facts right is hard work. It requires time, resources, and a willingness to challenge your own assumptions. But it’s the only way to build trust with your audience and to fulfill your responsibility as a journalist.

In today’s media landscape, understanding who controls the news is increasingly important.

It’s crucial to examine solutions to news overload to foster civic engagement.

Stop chasing the illusion of perfect balance. Start prioritizing facts, context, and clear sourcing. Only then can we hope to create a truly informed and engaged public. The future of news depends on it.