On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
Basically, balance is "give all sides of the
story, however ridiculous".
We see this a lot in political reporting, particularly in America, I
understand[0].
Ok, but is this really true? I can't imagine minority views ever
getting much airtime on mainstream American news?
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if
a view held by a
small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and
views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented
except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a
significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might
be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to
present competing views in proportion to their representation among
experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Thanks, I'll bear this one in mind. Handy for a particular editing
dispute I'm involved in...:)
[0] Australia has its own absurd version. Anyone
remember that fool
Alston insisting that ABC News give the Coalition and Labor "equal
time", so that one is not unfairly promoted over the other?
Beautifully parodied (with dancing girls!) by /The Chaser/, way back
in ... whenever it was. Too many Coalition govts, I've lost count.
2001? 1998?
Actually what's so absurd about that? I mean, assuming the commercial
networks were held to the same rule? It sort of seems reasonable that
during an election that the two parties get equal time. It would be
absurd if the Liberals, Nationals and Labor all demanded equal time :)
I suppose one obvious flaw is you could spend 30 minutes talking about
Labor's plans for Medicare then 30 minutes talking about John Howard's
past mistakes or something.
Steve