Is balance the enemy of science writing?
Brian Clegg
Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:06 UTC
There’s an editorial in today’s New Scientist pointing out how good we are at ignoring the impact of on-screen violence on behaviour.
It argues that (like climate change) there is a real lack of public confidence in the message that there is a link between screen violence and violent behaviour, because of the media’s misguided attempt at balance.
The suggestion is that where (as here) there is overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of one opinion, the media’s attempt to provide balance by giving equal weight to both sides of the argument is a mistake. It mislead the public, and does a disservice to science.
Is this true? If so, what should science writers be doing about it?
Brian Clegg
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Brian, you’re absolutely right. Attempts at ‘balance’ have the effect of giving credibility to fringe opinions that are demonstrably wrong, so that people might be led to believe that the holders of fringe views are just misunderstood, the subjects of cover-ups and so on. I think science writers already know this. The people you have to convince are news editors, who control the access of science writers to the media. The blogosphere could have the potential to change that, but the mavericks and gadflies have as much access to that as those holding more, shall we say, ‘falsifiable’ opinions.
-
I agree. To be neutral, is to be biased.
Personally, I believe as writers we are allowed to be opinionated. As long as we are writing for what we believe is a just cause, being opinionated is not wrong.
-
I’m biased in favor of continental drift.
-
Ooh, Carl, steady on. Next you’ll be subscribing to N-rays, phlogiston, Hans the Talking Horse and homeopathy.
-
If a report shows a strong tendency to one side, it must be suspected of intentional concealment by the readers, which to avoid, reporters always work hard to find every little piece of rumor of ‘the other side’. The public readers love counteractions in an event so much that if there is only one side win in a story it will not be regarded the truth although it is.
-
There was an excellent article by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne in the Guardian a couple of years ago that made this point:
“When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”
They were talking (as you might guess) about “intelligent design” but it applies across the board.
-
I see “media balance” as little more than an excuse to set two or more people up for an argument on live television. As a ratings ploy it seems to work well, as this is the exclusive format for most of the cable news network programs.
When the same concept is employed in written format (a writer gives equal time to all sides or treats each side as if it were equally valid) it becomes mere gossip.
What to do about it? Simple. Writers should stop pretending that all sides of an issue are equally valid. Write about the evidence, do not give equal time to crackpots, and abandon the idea that the all opinions automatically deserve respect.
Why should anyone give equal time to a guy who thinks the universe is 6000 years old, when the topic is evolution or cosmology?
-
Equal balance to both sides is definitely not a good thing. Pointing out alternatives, even poor ones, is okay; raising them beyond credibility is poor journalism.
Do you have a link to the editorial? I guess I’m one of those poor misled people who don’t see a causative link between simulated violence and real violent behaviour.
(I do have one of my own on studies showing desensitizing affect of video games )
I don’t think equal balance is as big a problem in journalism, as people who focus on reporting for their own personal side.
-
Follow this link for the New Scientist editorial on onscreen violence. You have to be a subscriber to read the whole piece.
Brian
-
I totally agree Bryan. The recent television screening of a climate change ‘forum’ here in Australia was just an exercise in ratings and I was astounded as to how, when I posted a similar comment to yours on the media forum, ‘non-scientists’ did not take anything I ‘said’ seriously, even to the extent of suggesting that my name was a ‘nome de plume’! I didn’t see the program (my colleagues encouraged me not to), but apparently, the panel of quite prominent scientists and science communicators were seen to just shake their heads in disbelief as to the comments they were receiving.
Yes…science writers definitely have a role and that needs further discussion including convincing the public that what they perceive as science ‘fiction’ is actually, science fact.Regards
Phil
Results
-