Checks and Balances

[vovat]

It seems really common nowadays for people, often right-wingers, to yak about "balance." Fox News is "fair and balanced," apparently unlike other news networks. Teaching Creationism in schools would provide "balance" for evolutionary biology. PBS isn't "balanced" enough. And so on. Of course, in many of these cases, the complainers aren't really looking for "balance" at all, but simply for agreement with their own ideas. We all know that Fox News isn't actually "balanced" at all, but instead has an extreme right-wing bias. It's annoying that some people actually seem to buy that Fox News IS "fair and balanced," but that's not really the issue in this particular entry. The thing is, should balance be what's ultimately desired in every situation?

With news reporting, I think the general goal shouldn't be balance so much as accuracy. Now, you could get into all kinds of arguments about the subjective nature of truth, and how different people observe events in different ways. And it's impossible for a human being to be free from bias; we all have our own opinions. So, yes, when a controversial issue comes up, it does make sense to present multiple viewpoints. I suppose this is balance of a sort, but, I don't know. To me, the word implies dualism. After all, a balance says only two sides, right? There are a lot of issues that have more than two sides, though, and I'm not sure that's acknowledged by the faux-balance-mongers. Besides, if far-right and far-left viewpoints balance each other out, does that mean moderates are always right?

When getting into matters of science and religion, the whole "balance" thing becomes even more ridiculous. Science isn't based on fairness, but on observation and testing. It also isn't the opposite of religion, or a religion unto itself, as some fundamentalists like to claim. So having a scientific concept "balanced" by a religious one makes no sense, for several reasons. It isn't a matter of "balance"; it's a matter of whether something is supported by real scientific evidence. I don't think the natural world cares whether it provides more support for the liberal or the conservative side.

Okay, this entry hasn't worked out as well as I might have hoped. Oh, well. You still get my point, right?

Comments

[twobitme.livejournal.com]

You're right. The media shouldn't be "balanced." A good media or journalist should be "un-biased" and "non-partisan" providing the facts as they are without spin of any sort.

Unfortunately, it's not about facts, and is sadly about ratings.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you really can't talk about "balance" when it comes to facts. Of course, it's impossible for a human being with a functioning mind to be totally free from bias, but when someone is constantly expressing opinions as fact, or just flat-out ignoring the facts (like the Creationists tend to do), that should be a sign that something's wrong.