CJR November/December 2004: Blinded by Science
In contrast to my point about always attempting to show a balanced point of view, this article actually argues for eliminating the contradictory position. Well, that may be a bit broad, but the point is very well taken. Reporters responsibility (and bloggers, I'm talking to you too) SHOULD reflect reality, not equivalent representation of unfounded theory. Global Warming is happening. Abortions do not cause breast cancer. Evolution is real. Antibiotics do not "cause" autism (remind me to get into THAT doozy later). The balancing of these articles ultimately detracts from their value because you're applying equal weight to both sides when in fact the two sides are not evenly weighted by the people who know. If you have a thousand word piece and 200 words are dedicated to the pro side and 200 words are dedicated to the con side, I don't care if the 200 pro side words include the phrases "Everyone one in the world believes that" or "thousands upon thousands of people have personally confirmed" and/or the con side says "only a moron would believe that" and so on, from the reader's point of view you've done a lot more to paint an equal picture than not. The fact that the media does a poor job of identifying connections between organizations and supposedly independent sides does not help. Both add up to the fact that you're not reflecting reality, which ultimately hurts your readership and your creditability a lot more than being painted as being "biased" would.