One of the biggest problems we face in the dying world of journalism is the fallacy — pioneered by Fox News and other right wing propaganda outlets — that there are always two sides to a story, that every truth has several options. This is simply false.
Imagine if you will a news report in which someone claims that the sky is blue. The reporter then, for the sake of “balance” trots out someone who counters with a claim that the sky is yellow. They engage in a bit of banter between the two viewpoints and then leave the impression that both sides are to be taken into account and that both views are equally valid.
The problem here is that only one side is valid. The other is clearly bullshit. But in today’s propagandizing environment, people are assured that bullshit is true, or at least, worth contemplating.
Rather than parse and investigate and then report the truth, today’s media have decided that they should just “report” what others claim. And by reporting diametrically opposing views, they feel that they have been “fair and balanced.” The result? Nothing is true anymore and nothing is false.
So you can imagine how thrilled I was to read this today:
NPR Tries to Get its Pressthink Right
It now commits itself to avoiding the worst excesses of “he said, she said” journalism. It says to itself that a report characterized by false balance is a false report. It introduces a new and potentially powerful concept of fairness: being “fair to the truth.”
… Maintaining the “appearance of balance” isn’t good enough, NPR says. “If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side…” we have to say so. When we are spun, we don’t just report it. “We tell our audience…” This is spin! [pressthink.org]
I sincerely hope that NPR takes their new Ethics Handbook to heart. I have despaired of late, listening to outright lies and ridiculous myths being spouted on NPR without challenge in the name of “balance.” Will NPR earn my respect (and membership dollars) again? One commenter on Poynter doesn’t seem to think so:
So doesn’t sound like this handbook addresses the egregious practice of creating controversy that calls into question well established facts also known as the “equivalency game” . NPR has through their “reporting” contributed to the public’s skepticism about the science of climate change and, by giving credence to the completely discredited practice of “reparative therapy” has created real harm to vulnerable people. What’s the next NPR headline? “Will the sun rise tomorrow? ‘expert’ says not so sure.” [poynter.org]
I’m listening, NPR.
