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?
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