You Can’t Achieve Balance by Promoting Nonsense

The idea that all serious media outlets must present “balanced” (i.e. opposing) views on every single topic they cover is inherently flawed and extremely problematic. In their quest to fulfill this misguided self-imposed requirement, these outlets succeed only in creating unnecessary short-term conflict, discrediting experts, lending credence to nonsense, and ruining their own long-term credibility.

Of course, on matters of opinion, it is entirely possible to provide real balance, and presenting multiple perspectives is a laudable goal. What was the best movie of 2019? What’s the tastiest flavor of ice cream? Who was the most influential Renaissance painter? Each of these questions is entirely a matter of opinion, which means that they are open for debate. Multiple valid perspectives on these inherently subjective topics certainly exist, and should be welcomed in any discussion of them. When covering this type of topic, it is both acceptable and expected that any serious outlet would present an impassioned argument for chocolate pitted against a full-throated defense of vanilla, with a curveball plea in favor of strawberry thrown in for good measure.

But not all topics are matters of opinion, and this is the crucial distinction that many publications fail to make. Water is wet. Grass is green. Fire is hot. These are known quantities, and any attempt to argue otherwise would rightly be identified as misinformed at best and deliberate trolling at worst. These subjects are not open for debate, and no amount of red-faced shouting or feigned skepticism will change this simple fact. And yet, too many news shows and publications too often treat scientifically settled matters as if they are in fact up for discussion out of a misguided need to appear “balanced” at all times, in all things, no matter the facts on the ground or the mass of research and human knowledge aligned behind a given perspective.

By elevating crackpot conspiracy theories and widely debunked partisan talking points, and presenting them as somehow equivalent to the research-based learnings painstakingly gained over decades of peer-reviewed studies, these outlets manage only to hoist themselves by their own petard. They reveal themselves to be hopelessly biased in favor of the appearance of balance rather than genuinely interested in the faithful representation of it, thereby exposing the true motivation behind their decision to present their coverage in this way. It is not, as they would have you believe, to inform, educate, or encourage honest debate about topics that have two or more equally credible sides/perspectives. Rather, it is to generate clicks, controversy, and revenue, as well as to curry favor with an audience that has no interest in being informed or educated in the first place.

Even worse, by creating false controversy and fostering disagreement over topics on which overwhelming expert consensus has already been reached, news outlets that peddle sham equivalence actively retard the dissemination of accurate information and encourage their readers/viewers/subscribers to disbelieve credible experts. This leads to much time and copy being wasted on unnecessary remedial explanations by those with relevant knowledge. Unfortunately, these efforts are ultimately self-defeating, because in making attempts to further explain and clarify their position, subject matter experts are actually playing into the narrative that the issue is in fact open for debate.

Blind faith in those claiming to be experts is not advisable, but the deliberate erosion of the very concept of expertise is even worse. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is decidedly not entitled to their own facts (fuck you very much Kellyanne Conway, Rudy Giuliani, & co.). 

In cases where there is much yet to be learned, where people of differing backgrounds can disagree in good faith, and where the vast sum of acquired human knowledge has not yet produced an ironclad consensus, by all means provide us with a range of well-informed, well-intentioned, sincerely held perspectives. Give us any facts that have been established as definitely or almost-definitely true, give us relevant context around how these facts were obtained, and tell us to what degree we should expect this information to remain accurate in the future. And, if there are truly still holdouts from the consensus perspective, manning the ramparts of one or more minority positions in good faith, tell us who they are and what they think, and if possible, why. 

But on topics of settled science, proven fact, and widespread expert consensus backed up by the accumulation of overwhelming evidence, just give us the truth or the closest thing we have to it, and explain how and why the relevant conclusions were reached. Do not, under any circumstances, feed us a side-dish of bullshit and expect us to thank you for it. We deserve better from you, and if we don’t get it, eventually we are going to go elsewhere for it or, better yet, create it ourselves. 

In fact, if you’d like to see an example of how to present real balance effectively, you may wish to check out our post on the Abortion Debate in America. In it we endeavor to consider multiple perspectives in good faith, and we look for areas of consensus and compromise where both “sides” can agree on mutually beneficial actions and policies. If we are able to produce this type of content on a shoestring budget with just a few hours of research, why can’t you do something similar?  Or is it simply that you just don’t want to…