false balance

{{about|the media term|the informal fallacy|Argument to moderation|the fallacy of inconsistency|False equivalence}}

File:False balance in climate science.pngs in 2013, 97% of peer-reviewed papers that took a position on the cause of global warming said that humans are responsible, while 3% said they were not. Among Fox News guests in late 2013, this topic was presented in a contrarian way, with 31% of invited guests believing it was happening and 69% not.{{cite news |last1=Nuccitelli |first1=Dana |title=Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism |access-date=15 April 2023 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=23 October 2013}}]]

False balance, known colloquially as bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.{{Cite journal|last1=Boykoff|first1=Maxwell T|last2=Boykoff|first2=Jules M|title=Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press|journal=Global Environmental Change|volume=14|issue=2|pages=125–136|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001|year=2004}}{{cite news |last1=Witynski |first1=Max |title=False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis |url=https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/07/false-balance-reporting-climate-change-crisis/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Northwestern News |date=July 22, 2022 |language=en}}{{cite journal |last1=Imundo |first1=Megan N. |last2=Rapp |first2=David N. |title=When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change. |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |date=June 2022 |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=258–271 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.002 |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.002 |access-date=15 June 2023 |language=en |issn=2211-369X|url-access=subscription }}

False balance is a bias which often stems from an attempt to avoid bias and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability. It creates a public perception that some issues are scientifically contentious, though in reality they are not, therefore creating doubt about the scientific state of research. This can be exploited by interest groups such as corporations like the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry, or ideologically motivated activists such as vaccination opponents or creationists.{{cite journal |authorlink=David Robert Grimes |first=David Robert |last=Grimes |title=A dangerous balancing act |journal=EMBO Reports |year=2019 |volume=20 |issue=8 |pages=e48706 |doi=10.15252/embr.201948706|pmid=31286661 |pmc=6680130 }}.

Examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of human-caused climate change versus natural climate variability, the health effects of tobacco, the alleged relation between thiomersal and autism,{{cite journal|author=Gross L|year=2009|title=A broken trust: lessons from the vaccine—autism wars|journal=PLoS Biol|volume=7|issue=5|pages=756–9|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114|pmc=2682483|pmid=19478850 |doi-access=free }} alleged negative side effects of the HPV vaccine,{{Cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=Ryan J. |last2=Tandoc |first2=Edson C. |last3=Hinnant |first3=Amanda |date=February 2017 |title=False Balance in Public Health Reporting? Michele Bachmann, the HPV Vaccine, and "Mental Retardation" |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27192091/ |journal=Health Communication |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=152–160 |doi=10.1080/10410236.2015.1110006 |issn=1532-7027 |pmid=27192091|s2cid=3437969 }} and evolution versus intelligent design.{{cite book|url=https://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/EvC--Chapter2.pdf|title=Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction|last1=Scott|first1=Eugenie C.|date=2009|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=9780313344275|edition=Second|location=Westport, CT|access-date=1 November 2017}}

Description and origin

False balance emerges from the ideal of journalistic objectivity, where factual news is presented in a way that allows the reader to make determinations about how to interpret the facts, and interpretations or arguments around those facts are left to the opinion pages. Because many newsworthy events have two or more opposing camps making competing claims, news media are responsible for reporting all (credible or reasonable) opposing positions, along with verified facts that may support one or the other side of an issue. At one time, when false balance was prevalent, news media sometimes reported all positions as though they were equally credible, even though the facts clearly contradicted a position, or there was a substantial consensus on one side of an issue, and only a fringe or nascent theory supporting the other side.

More recently, in contrast to prior decades, most media are willing to advocate for a particular viewpoint which they regarded as better evidenced. For instance, claims that the Earth is not warming are regularly referred to in news (vs only editorials) as "denial", "misleading", or "debunked".{{cite news |last1=Tabuchi |first1=Hiroko |author-link=Hiroko Tabuchi |date=2 March 2020 |title=A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/climate/goks-uncertainty-language-interior.html |url-access=limited}} Prior to this shift, media would sometimes list all positions without clarifying that one position is known or generally agreed to be false.

Unlike most other media biases, false balance may result from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may consider treating competing viewpoints fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—as equivalent to treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views, even though one of the viewpoints may be overwhelmingly dominant.{{cite news |last=Krugman |first=Paul |author-link=Paul Krugman |date=30 January 2006 |title=A False Balance |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6DB1E3FF933A05752C0A9609C8B63 |url-access=limited}} Media would then present two opposing viewpoints on an issue as equally credible, or present a major issue on one side of a debate as having the same weight as a minor one on the other. False balance can also originate from other motives such as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful than a more accurate (or widely-agreed) account of the issue.

Science journalist Dirk Steffens mocked the practice as comparable to inviting a flat Earther to debate with an astrophysicist over the shape of the Earth, as if the truth could be found somewhere in the middle.{{Cite web |last=Deutschland |first=RedaktionsNetzwerk |title=Dirk Steffens zu Umgang mit Corona- und Klimaleugnern: "Falsch, Verblendeten das Wort zu erteilen" |url=https://www.rnd.de/promis/dirk-steffens-zu-umgang-mit-corona-und-klimaleugnern-falsch-verblendeten-das-wort-zu-erteilen-J6YHUZ6RX5CH7KFA54AU4UEI54.html |access-date=13 September 2022 |website=www.rnd.de |language=de}} Liz Spayd of The New York Times wrote: "The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking."{{Cite news |last=Spayd |first=Liz |date=10 September 2016 |title=The Truth About 'False Balance' |language=en-US |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/public-editor/the-truth-about-false-balance.html |url-access=limited |access-date=13 September 2022 |issn=0362-4331}}

Examples

=Climate change=

Although the scientific community almost unanimously attributes a majority of the global warming since 1950 to the effects of the Industrial Revolution,{{Cite book |last=Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council |url=https://archive.org/details/surfacetemperatu0000unse |title=Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years |publisher=The National Academies Press |year=2006 |isbn=0-309-10225-1 |location=Washington, D.C. |url-access=registration}}{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0906548107 | volume = 107 | issue = 8 | pages = 3382–7 | last1 = Unger | first1 = Nadine |author-link1=Nadine Unger |first2=Tami C. |last2=Bond |first3=James S. |last3=Wang |first4=Dorothy M. |last4=Koch |first5=Surabi |last5=Menon |first6=Drew T. |last6=Shindell |first7=Susanne |last7=Bauer | title = Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | date = 23 February 2010 |pmid=20133724 |pmc=2816198 | bibcode = 2010PNAS..107.3382U | doi-access = free }}{{cite book |editor1-last=Edenhofer |editor1-first=Ottmar |editor2-last=Pichs-Madruga |editor2-first=Ramón |editor3-last=Sokona |editor3-first=Youba |display-editors=etal |date=2014 |title=Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |location=Cambridge, UK; New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781107058217 |oclc=892580682 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781107415416 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JAFEBgAAQBAJ}} there are a very small number – a few dozen scientists out of tens of thousands – who dispute the conclusion.{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 | volume = 107 | issue = 27 | pages = 12107–9 | last1 = Anderegg | first1 = William R. L. |first2=James W. |last2=Prall |first3=Jacob |last3=Harold |first4=Stephen H. |last4=Schneider |author4-link=Stephen H. Schneider | title = Expert credibility in climate change | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | date = 6 July 2010 | pmid=20566872 | pmc=2901439 |bibcode = 2010PNAS..10712107A | doi-access = free }}{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1126/science.1103618 | volume = 306 | issue = 5702 | pages = 1686 | last = Oreskes | first = Naomi |author-link=Naomi Oreskes | title = The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | journal =Science | date = 3 December 2004 | pmid=15576594 | doi-access = free }}{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1029/2009EO030002 | volume = 90 | issue = 3 | pages = 22–23 | first1 = Peter T. | last1 = Doran | first2 = Maggie Kendall | last2 = Zimmerman | title = Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | journal = Eos | date = 20 January 2009 | url = http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf | bibcode = 2009EOSTr..90...22D | s2cid = 128398335 | access-date = 8 September 2016 | archive-date = 25 September 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190925203854/https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf | url-status = dead }} Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change that anthropogenic global warming exists.{{Cite book |last=America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council |url=https://archive.org/details/advancingscience0000nati |title=Advancing the Science of Climate Change |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-309-14588-6 |location=Washington, D.C. |url-access=registration}}

=MMR vaccine controversy=

Observers have criticized the involvement of mass media in the MMR vaccine controversy, what is known as "science by press conference",{{cite journal | author = Moore Andrew | year = 2006 | title = Bad science in the headlines: Who takes responsibility when science is distorted in the mass media? | url= | journal = EMBO Reports | volume = 7 | issue = 12| pages = 1193–1196 | doi = 10.1038/sj.embor.7400862 | pmid = 17139292 | pmc = 1794697 }} alleging that the media provided Andrew Wakefield's study with more credibility than it deserved. A March 2007 paper in BMC Public Health by Shona Hilton, Mark Petticrew, and Kate Hunt postulated that media reports on Wakefield's study had "created the misleading impression that the evidence for the link with autism was as substantial as the evidence against".{{cite journal |vauthors=Hilton S, Petticrew M, Hunt K| year = 2007 | title = Parents' champions vs. vested interests: Who do parents believe about MMR? A qualitative study | journal = BMC Public Health | volume = 7 | page = 42 | pmc=1851707 | pmid=17391507 | doi=10.1186/1471-2458-7-42 | doi-access = free }} Earlier papers in Communication in Medicine and the British Medical Journal concluded that media reports provided a misleading picture of the level of support for Wakefield's hypothesis.{{cite journal |vauthors=Speers T, Justin L |title= Journalists and jabs: media coverage of the MMR vaccine |journal= Communication and Medicine |volume= 1 |issue= 2 |pages= 171–181 |doi= 10.1515/come.2004.1.2.171 |pmid= 16808699 |date=September 2004|s2cid= 29969819 }}{{cite journal | author = Jackson T | year = 2003 | title = MMR: more scrutiny, please | journal = The BMJ | volume = 326 | issue = 7401| page = 1272 | doi=10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1272| pmc = 1126154 }}{{cite journal | author = Dobson Roger |date=May 2003 | title = Media misled the public over the MMR vaccine, study says | journal = The BMJ | volume = 326 | issue = 7399| page = 1107 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1107-a | pmc=1150987 | pmid=12763972}}

References

External links

Category:Bias

Category:News media manipulation

Category:Error

Category:Barriers to critical thinking