Do you believe that both sides of a political debate deserve equal coverage by the media? If you say yes, 76% of United States adults agree with you, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While this expectation may have had its place at one point in time, it deserves a deep reevaluation in today’s political landscape.
“Bothsidesism” describes when journalists, in their quest to appear unbiased, give equal weight to both sides of an argument, even when one side is demonstrably false. This can also manifest in applying different standards to both sides to make them appear equal. This thought process, also called “false balance,” is faulty. Just because two arguments exist opposed to each other does not make them inherently equal or worthy of balanced coverage.
It is an undeniable fact that several squirrels populate the Diag. It is just true. While virtually everyone would agree with that fact, one might be able to cobble together a group of “squirrel denialists” from far-flung corners of the world to dispute it. Clearly, an equally weighted roundtable discussion between squirrel believers and squirrel denialists would not be worthwhile.
Of course, this thought process extends to real-world examples as well. Take climate change as a prime example. The consensus of over 99% of scientists is that climate change is real, primarily human-induced and poses a significant threat to our planet. Yet, media outlets presented climate change as an open debate for years. Many misperceptions about the climate crisis, normalized by journalistic recklessness, persist.
The common cable news practice of having two pundits debate an issue does not work because it misrepresents expert opinion; you would need 99 climate change believers on screen for every one skeptic to be fully representative of expert sentiment. Of course, no media outlet would do this. This is not to say that dissent should be automatically sidelined if it is less popular, or that an authority on an issue is automatically right, but holding some debates is inherently unproductive and misleading for the public.
Just as giving equal weight toward opposing ideas can be unfounded, so is how we rank and sort media outlets in the first place. You have possibly seen an often-shared graphic of where media outlets supposedly fall ideologically from left wing, to center, to right wing. Of course, where exactly the “center” is located is completely arbitrary in itself, and attempts to sort media outlets by ideology implicitly gives equal weight to both sides of the ideological spectrum, no matter what the beliefs being shared on the media outlet are.
We seek out news to get the truth about the world around us. When news outlets present all viewpoints as if they are equally valid or as if they exist on a neatly sorted spectrum, they risk giving undue legitimacy to fringe or baseless positions, which can distort public discourse and make it harder to reach such truths. Given the sheer amount of noise in today’s politics, now is the time to deny platforms to those spewing outright falsehoods.
The media has faced unprecedented criticism in recent years, with some describing certain coverage as “fake news” and “biased.” Given that the business model of legacy media hinges on maintaining its politically diverse readership, it is unsurprising that the nation’s media outlets have acquiesced toward false balance in a futile attempt to restore trust among those who disagree with recent coverage.
Outlets have balanced coverage of former President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on democracy with President Joe Biden’s purported mishandling of the economy, particularly regarding recent inflation. The U.S. economy has still outperformed most of the developed world amid tough macroeconomic conditions while outperforming prior expectations. Even when inflation data indicates that prices are stabilizing, some media outlets have refused to give the Biden administration its deserved flowers.
Research shows that media coverage of the economy has become more negative particularly since 2021, overshooting actual economic hiccups. Further research indicates that negative media sentiment unsurprisingly leads to greater pessimism about the economy among the U.S. population.
According to a recent Harris poll for the Guardian, “56% (of Americans) think the U.S. is experiencing a recession,” “49% believe the S&P 500 index is down for the year” and “49% believe that unemployment is at a 50-year high.” All of these perceptions are incorrect. The economy has had seven straight quarters of GDP growth, the S&P 500 has beaten its average yearly return in 2024’s first six months and unemployment is near a historic low.
Biden can and should be criticized on a variety of issues. That being said, the media’s current fixation on several of his faults as a counterweight to Trump’s blatant disregard for the constitution (such as his suggestion of a very unconstitutional third term or his desired dictatorship).
Several outlets indeed have slants that could be described as liberal (or conservative). That being said, there are still wildly different standards applied to the candidates of both major parties. An embarrassing scandal for Biden would barely register for Trump no matter the outlet — false balance and nearly a decade of bonkers headlines have normalized this.
False balance does a disservice to the public by equating truth with falsehood. In an age where misinformation can have dire consequences, as serious as a potential end to democracy, it is more important than ever for journalism to hold firm to the principles of accuracy and evidence. By doing so, the media can fulfill its role in a democratic society, helping citizens to make informed decisions based on facts, not fiction.
Hayden Buckfire is an Opinion Columnist who writes about American politics and culture. He can be reached at haybuck@umich.edu.
The post Don’t fall for ‘bothsidesism’ appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply