Margaret Sullivan, NYT Public Editor speaks about what’s wrong with “fair and balanced” journalism.
IN journalism, as in life, balance sounds like an unassailably good thing.
But while balance may be necessary to mediating a dispute between teenage siblings, a different kind of balance — some call it “false equivalency” — has come under increasing fire. The firing squad is the public: readers and viewers who rely on accurate news reporting to make them informed citizens.
Simply put, false balance is the journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side. And many people are fed up with it. They don’t want to hear lies or half-truths given credence on one side, and shot down on the other. They want some real answers.
To which I say, where were you or your predecessors when Judith Miller was your stenographer for Dick Cheney and the rest of the Bush White House Neocons?
Or to put in in terms even New York Times Editors can understand:
Duh!
Especially since they are still doing the false equivalency rag!
In his article, which led last Monday’s paper, the national reporter Ethan Bronner made every effort to provide balance. Some readers say the piece, in so doing, wrongly suggested that there was enough voter fraud to justify strict voter identification requirements — rules that some Democrats believe amount to vote suppression. Ben Somberg of the Center for Progressive Reform said The Times itself had established in multiple stories that there was little evidence of voter fraud.
The rest of Sullivan’s op-ed piece, believe it or not, goes to great lengths to say that while “balanced” journalism is a bad thing, and the rejection of “false equivalency” is a good thing, it’s hard to do because gosh we we have deadlines, and people just don’t get the pressure we are under “in an election year.” Really. It reads like an Onion article.
Here is my favorite paragraph in the whole article:
The Times does not have written guidelines for reporters on false balance. “How could you, since every situation is different?” Mr. Corbett said.
Yes, how could you have guidelines for reporters to help them understand when not to help one side of an “issue” spread lies to mislead the public even when they know the other side has facts to support their position? The horror!
See, even when the so-called liberal elites at the NY Times claim they understand “false equivalency” in journalism is a bad thing they keep excusing themselves for continuing to practice it. Over and over again. To paraphrase a former President you might remember, Okay Ms. Sullivan, you covered your ass. Too bad you’re so obvious about it.
