When Balance Overrides Principle

In J-School, it can feel like we’re taught to adhere to maintaining balance at all costs. But never did I think about how, in our attempt to achieve “balance,” we could override our most primary objective, to Seek The Truth.

In our class discussions, we looked at some examples where this so called balance was actually hurting the way journalists reported on stories. One of these examples sparked an ¨ah-ha¨ moment for me. It was the example of the Iraq War coverage, and they brought on one democrat and one republican to talk about the war. Had I not thought about this further, I would of considered this an appropriate form of trying to stay objective. But looking at it after our discussions, I see this attempt to show balance was actually a false balance. Both sides were for the war. In trying to maintain this balance, the media actually skewed the story. If they were trying to strike a balance, they would then need someone who is pro-war and someone who’s against it. In this case, I see the media’s attempts at “balance” as more of a cover to silence voices against the war.

This problem still exists even today. On Fox News, you’ll hear the justification of approving the Keystone pipeline, by stating that the majority of democrats and republicans are for it. This is not seeking the truth. Same with airstrikes in Syria. Although it’s a little different situation than the war in Iraq, I have not seen a real anti-war argument given much time, if any, on CNN against these strikes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4pAIyo-uYk (Republican/Dem Keystone)

Another example we talked about that helped me understand this idea of a false balance, was with the civil rights movement and how some of the media, when talking about segregation, would bring on someone who supported segregation and one against. Striking this “balance” was not appropriate because this caused the truth to be muddled. The truth was that segregation was wrong but instead, they choose to approach the issue with a “balanced” approach, which makes it seem like both sides have legitimacy. Looking back now, do those outlets want to admit that they were giving people who supported segregation a voice? I doubt it.

My main problem with the media sticking to this rule of “balance”, is that if you’re truly going to try to make that your brand, then do it for ever story. Don't pick and choose. If you’re going to sell yourself as being “objective”, even if it means that the actual truth is missing from stories, then do it for every story. We see this in cases like Trayvon Martin or ferguson, where the first thing to be mentioned was race.

However, I don't think keeping “balance” should be the highest priority in reporting. In fact, I think it’s dangerous because of the examples I gave. When we as journalists forgo our core principles in our attempts to be objective, we lose sight of our main mission, to seek the truth, and that’s a very dangerous thing.