How both sides journalism is destroying democracy.
A very brief explanation of both sides journalism, or bothsidesism.
Aunt Jackie is a free and paid newsletter. If you find yourself reading it regularly and you enjoy it and find it valuable, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. This gives you full access and it helps me make a living as an artist.
I have been wanting to share info about both sides journalism, or bothsidesism, for a while and I’m feeling fired up today after reading another news story that has done a disservice to the people it claims to be serving.
From Democracy Toolkit:
Also known as false equivalence, bothsidesism happens when people use objectivity as an excuse to give equal weight to opposing viewpoints, regardless of merit or factual accuracy. In bothsidesism, false information and ill-formed arguments may be presented as equally valid responses to arguments based in reality. Bothsidesism in journalism makes it difficult for audiences to differentiate between baseless claims and rigorous reporting, all while simultaneously legitimizing bad actors.
Bothsideissm threatens democracy because it erodes trust in credible journalism. Beyond that, it also creates an atmosphere where important issues are watered down to a two-sided conflict with a superficial “balance,” which hinders the public’s understanding of the things that impact them.
To avoid bothsidesism, journalists must remember that balance can be different than — or at odds with — accuracy and completeness. Reporters should aim to cover a broad range of perspectives while maintaining a commitment to telling honest stories. That can mean dedicating less time and space to misinformation or hate-speech driven viewpoints; or pushing back on those arguments in real-time during debates, on social media, and in broadcast interviews.
From this interview with Letrell Crittenden, the Director of Communications at Thomas Jefferson University.
What is “both sides” reporting? Why did it become a standard practice in journalism?
It stems from a number of traditional practices in journalism– objectivity, balance – that refer to a belief that news stories should present a range of views within each story. I actually agree with that idea. However, that is not how the idea of “both sides” has developed over time. Today, both-sides has come to mean that news stories should give equal time to opposing viewpoints – typically linked to political causes – and that a failure to do so represents a form of bias. Today, the importance of this idea of balance has become so inflated. It is used by people to outright dismiss news and information that appear to favor one particular “side” over the other, even if the information within is factually on point.
Do you feel like that style of reporting is outdated, that journalism needs new approaches?
Absolutely to both questions. But I don’t necessarily believe that the approaches need to be new per se. Allowing storytellers to center a perspective in news is not new, and in fact was commonplace in a great deal of news reporting throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. The Muckrakers who exposed corruption in government, the work of Ida B. Wells-Barnett, which exposed the horrors of lynchings in America, these were not objective narratives. Wells-Barnett was not out to show some balanced perspective on why Black people were being murdered in the South without justification. But these stories were based on solid investigative reporting and truth-telling.
What are some of the problems that arise with both-sides reporting?
First, as mentioned, it centers perspective as opposed to truth telling. That in turn leads to the elevation of absurd ideas for the sake of balance, which is what we call the creation of false equivalencies. Take climate change, for example. The vast majority of research over the past several decades has overwhelmingly confirmed that man-made activity is resulting in horrendous changes to our ecosystems. If the goal is truth-telling, that should be the perspective, period. But because, for whatever reason, some people have a different view, and because this view has political connotations, balance dictates that the largely-rejected studies related to climate change deserve an equal play in news stories. Thus, we now have people peddling and elevating disputed facts for the sake of balance. The same has happened with mask wearing and the elevation of conspiracies surrounding election fraud. This is not good for democracy or the public sphere.
Can you give examples of when “both sides” journalism contributed to racist or biased reporting? Or perpetuated false claims?
There are plenty of examples, but I think the biggest issue is that it robs journalists of color of their perspective on issues related to race. The big example from this summer was when Pittsburgh-native Alexis Johnson was pulled from covering the George Floyd protests because she sent out a sarcastic tweet ridiculing the hypocrisy in how a riot following a Kenny Chesney concert was covered. This was seen as “bias” by the editor of her then-employer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, so they denied her the chance to report about an issue she knew more about than almost any reporter in that newsroom, as a Black woman from the city. She had better connections with potential sources than any other person in that newsroom. Not only did this in the short-term rob the paper of much-needed perspectives – indeed balance – regarding the Black Lives Matter movement, it eventually led her and another Black photographer, Michael Santiago, to leave the newspaper. Now, two reporters who had a connection to Black communities are gone from the newsroom, which means, most likely, fewer stories featuring perspectives from Black residents of Pittsburgh will be written. And given that Pittsburgh has historically stereotyped Black communities, it will most likely lead to more unbalanced, unfair reporting by the newspaper. The lesson for Black journalists? Do not offer your perspective, even when your perspective is needed most. This only perpetuates the problem related to coverage of Black communities.