1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Balanced coverage in the news is stupid when one side is obviously wrong.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Woofer, Nov 11, 2004.

Tags:
  1. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    - evolution versus whatever religious origin of life crockery or this example will suffice
    http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

    Blinded By ScienceHow ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
    By Chris Mooney

    On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”

    Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.

    But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold’s “so-called counseling” line (“a phrase that is loaded with derision”) and his “professional background in property management” quip (“seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this”). “The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers,” Carroll wrote, “but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.”

    .
    .
    .
    The trouble is, the leading proponent of the idea that abortions cause breast cancer, Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College at the City University of New York, underwent a pro-life religious conversion that left him feeling “compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose,” as he put it in Physician, a magazine published by a conservative religious group called Focus on the Family. Brind’s dedication to the ABC theory has flown in the face of repeated negative critiques of that theory by his scientific peers. When the National Cancer Institute convened the world’s experts to assess the question in February 2003, Brind was the only dissenter from the group’s conclusions.


    .
    .
    .
    Yet in each case, the basic journalistic remedy would probably be the same. As a general rule, journalists should treat fringe scientific claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major peer-reviewed papers or assessments have to say about them. Moreover, they should adhere to the principle that the more outlandish or dramatic the claim, the more skepticism it warrants. The Los Angeles Times’s Carroll observes that “every good journalist has a bit of a contrarian in his soul,” but it is precisely this impulse that can lead reporters astray. The fact is, nonscientist journalists can all too easily fall for scientific-sounding claims that they can’t adequately evaluate on their own.

    That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism. At the very least, journalists covering science-based policy debates should familiarize themselves with this professional proving ground, learn what it says about the relative merits of competing claims, and “balance” their reports accordingly
     
    #1 Woofer, Nov 11, 2004
  2. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,509
    Likes Received:
    19,716
    would be applicable if only one side lied in the media. unfortunately, they all do.
     
    #2 MadMax, Nov 11, 2004
  3. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    would be applicable if only one side lied in the media. unfortunately, they all do.

    Oh, so you advocate lying since the other side does?
     
    #3 glynch, Nov 11, 2004
  4. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    David Brock says that now on Fox News and Crossfire etc. you would have stories like "The Holocaust, Right or Wrong?" giving a "balanced" treatment to the issue.
     
    #4 glynch, Nov 11, 2004
  5. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,075
    Likes Received:
    16,956
    Yet in each case, the basic journalistic remedy would probably be the same. As a general rule, journalists should treat fringe scientific claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major peer-reviewed papers or assessments have to say about them.

    Delusions abound.

    There are exceptionally few journalists who can write about science in layman terms, without screwing the pooch. It is way easier to present both sides of each story and move on.
     
    #5 No Worries, Nov 11, 2004
  6. thadeus

    thadeus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    The idea of balanced coverage and moderate politics, and the implication that they're somehow more correct because of their balance/moderation goes something like this:

    (On the hot-button issue of 2+2)
    The Leftist Lunatic Leprechauns says 2+2=6
    The Rightwing Machinegun Guild says 2+2=4

    The moderates, seeking balance between the extremes, compromise and say 2+2=5.

    The camp an idea is thrown in has no bearing on whether that idea is correct or incorrect.

    So...I agree with the thread title.
     
    #6 thadeus, Nov 11, 2004
  7. Mulder

    Mulder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    There is a difference between fact and opinion. The mnedia and especially television media have forgetten this.

    fact -
    1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
    2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
    b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
    c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
    3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
    4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


    Opinion -
    1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
    2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
    3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
    4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
    5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
     
    #7 Mulder, Nov 11, 2004
  8. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,509
    Likes Received:
    19,716
    oh, of course i do, glynch. i love lying. i'm glad you asked! lying is the best.

    YEA, LYING!
     
    #8 MadMax, Nov 12, 2004
  9. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    .would be applicable if only one side lied in the media. unfortunately, they all do.

    Max, you just don't get it. Saying both sides lie isn't relevant to the discussion. The question is whether responsible journalists should take the time to evaluate the facts and point to respected sources, showing which side, if any, is lying or deceiving.

    Allowing false claims to be circulated as the truth or as impossible to refute possible truth, when the evidence on the other side is overwhelming, is irresponsible.
     
    #9 glynch, Nov 12, 2004
  10. bnb

    bnb Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    315
    I have to agree with 'Carroll' here!

    Not saying you have to present both sides as equally credible...especially if one is not...but if you want to appear impartial then using loaded phrases, or what might be considered 'cheap shots' does make you less trustable.

    Instead of "so-called counselling' he could have simly said counselling and then added why some critics think this is a smokescreen, or whatever.

    If you outright dismiss a viewpoint before your readers do, you'll alienate them. If you counter that viewpoint with reasoning, you'll better explain your position.
     
    #10 bnb, Nov 12, 2004
  11. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,509
    Likes Received:
    19,716
    you had me at hello, glynch....you had me at hello.
     
    #11 MadMax, Nov 12, 2004
  12. emjohn

    emjohn Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    12,132
    Likes Received:
    567
    Balanced Coverage does not mean giving equal marks.

    A very simple example is the number of lead articles or covers a magazine gives to one side or the other. For example, Newsweek ran something around 6 issues with Kerry on the cover, and 2 or 3 with Bush this past election year.

    For debate shows, its more a matter of the guests or experts that are brought in.

    The conclusions could be one-sided and still be from balanced coverage. Unfortunately, most media outlets are going away from balanced coverage - pushing an agenda.

    Evan
     
    #12 emjohn, Nov 12, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now