G'day Steve,
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@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?
It's not so much a case of "minority views" as "batshit views". Taking the LaRouche example --- it is not so much the insignicance of LaRouche that is important, to me, in the balance/neutrality debate, as it is the utter disconnection from reality. Dick Cheney isn't going to launch nukes against Iran tomorrow, and Lyndon LaRouche would certainly not be his strongest opponent were he to attempt to do so.
Sometimes, of the two main sides of any story, only one is indeed the truth. I'll pick an example from the /Columbia Journalism Review/ ...
Suppose that a bunch of anti-abortion lobbyists had recently discovered that abortion increases one's risk of breast cancer. Now, suppose that that is, in fact, a lie, and scientists stand firm that abortion, regardless of the moral issues concerned (let's not go there), has *no* relationship to breast cancer whatsoever. How should this story be reported?
"Abortion activists have uncovered evidence that the risk of breast cancer increases dramatically in women who have had abortions. However, some scientists dispute this."
And continuing on in the same vein. This could well be a good, balanced, newspaper article, with the reporter careful not to draw any conclusions, always giving both assertions equal time, and so on. It would also be complete bollocks: because, by not explaining that there is no link, that this is a fact and not just an assertion from certain (probably pinko abortion-loving) scientists, the journalist is allowing the reader to come away with the impression that there is a chance that a connection exists between cancer and abortions. The article really needs to deny such a connection.
It would be NPOV to say "there is no link between cancer and abortions", because there is *nothing wrong* with reporting *pure, undisputable fact*. It would not, however, be balanced.
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...:)
Policy has its uses. Not as many as I've been told, but they *are* out there.
[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.
Well, suppose one party were more newsworthy on a particular day? "Labor today unveiled their plans for Medicare Platinum, which would guarantee free health care for any Australian citizen or any non-citizen who can sing 'Waltzing Matilda'. Meanwile, the Liberals continue to set up a dais of some description, which they have termed a 'stage', in preparation for their big policy launch tomorrow night. We'll cut to Joe Bloggs for the financial news shortly, but don't worry, we'll have more on this fascinating dais story later in the programme."
I trust the ABC to report fairly, accurately, and with the appropriate amount of timing and emphasis on each story. Neither the Coalition, nor Labor --- at least, when in power --- agrees, largely because exposing government lies is great when you're *not* the government, but otherwise quite a drag. Before Alston, I had never heard of anyone sitting and watching with a stopwatch, to *literally* enforce "equal time".
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse