“Fuck balance, some things are just true. Black people should not be kept as slaves, the holocaust really did take place, there are denialists for both but generally it is not deemed necessary to seek their opinions when making a documentary on the slave trade or the holocaust.”

The denialists you speak of (and anybody denying a spherical Earth) are generally considered fruitloops and don’t have a voice outside of murky internet forums – hence why there’s no need to give them air time. However, global warming, whether we like it or not, is debated throughout the media and a sizeable minority of the population do not appear to believe that it is man-made. That may explain why people are wheeled out to bring balance.

you shouldn’t confuse bad journalism with the “search for balance”. Good journalism is informed by the issues and is able to guide the viewer through the issues with sensible and pointed questioning. Bad journalism simply sets up a “he said, she said” bickering match that allows the best trained, most brazen populist to succeed.

Equally, the rules surrounding political interviews are so charged that the interviewee will not appear unless they are allowed to spread propaganda without being sensibly challenged. Such vanity pieces degrade News Values and should be declined. that said, I often suspect the journalist doens’t actually know the subject under discussion well enough to ask anything other than the weakest and vaguest softballs

You are comparing two different things. Moral issues: genocide, rape, slavery etc can be argued to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ from a number of different philosophical positions.

Science is the practice of the theoretical. ‘Facts’ in science are only true until something more true comes along. Everything is always ‘true for now’ – everyone assumed Newtonian theory had it sorted, then along cam Einstein etc. As such, discussing these issues is not like discussing a moral issue at all, and balance may be needed.

And … some things are not just true – unless you have suddenly found the key to philosophy after all these years. Everything should be examined freely – unless you are turning your back on the enlightenment, of course!

“The sign of good journalism is facts; the truth.”

It’s seldom “X happened today” that constitutes any kind of bias, it’s the analysis and explanation that like it or not, people want from the news. Once you move beyond X, however hard you try, however careful you are, you are going to bring a whole lot of assumptions that people seldom even consider that they hold.

This is not a partisan point, everyone whatever their views is going to do this. It becomes a significant problem when you have a great many people in an organisation with shared values/bias and you still claim neutrality. The real bugger is that whatever bias you hold, you don’t tend to see it even if you look for it. It’s only those with an opposing bias that will.

People are funny old things.

Steven Poole: once you have created the image of two things balanced on a set of scales, you have also already made the argument that their masses are identical, that they need to be considered as equal, just as the media like to “balance” a discussion of evolution with the creepy rantings of an “Intelligent Design” creationist, or a conversation on global warming with the viewpoint of an oil-company shill.

Adam Wilcox:Human evolution, global warming, and a spherical earth – these are scientific facts and despite the whimpering of the religious, whether or not they are true is not down to personal opinion. Yet when the topic of say global warming is tackled the denialists are wheeled out to provide ‘balance’.

Fuck balance, some things are just true. Black people should not be kept as slaves, the holocaust really did take place, there are denialists for both but generally it is not deemed necessary to seek their opinions when making a documentary on the slave trade or the holocaust.

Perhaps because man-made global warming is still seen as arguable / open to argument. Evolution, slavery, oblate earth and the holocaust are (largely) not seen as open to argument. At least, not by the larger TV companies.

Reporters and journalists and media figures should be judged on one thing and one thing only: whether what they say and report turns out to be true. If we had a media culture where people were hired and fired based on their record of truth-telling (or not), the world would be a much better place. …. The sign of good journalism is facts; the truth. Sometimes reality might go against our beliefs or desires for how the world should be, but hiding behind ‘balance’ when dealing with a controversial subject is a disservice to the truth.

Agreed about hiding but:

1. Sometimes people can get closer to the truth by listening to an adversarial discussion.

2. Fox’s truth is – I’m guessing – different from your truth; there are some people who believe what Glenn Beck says to be true. You say, “The sign of good journalism is facts; the truth.” Who’s truth? Who is judging? Who is right?

3. Some truths are things we can establish empirically (the shape of the earth), other things are a bit more complicated. Sometimes, in politics, the truth doesn’t even come into it – it’s about what people believe to be true that matters.

…a sizeable minority of the population do not appear to believe that it is man-made. That may explain why people are wheeled out to bring balance.

It’s a socially acceptable view. Other significant minorities get far less coverage than Janet Jackson’s breast.

The idea that one can expect balance from the corporate media is laughable. Still, so is this weird idea that campaign donations make Olbermann (*gasp*) biased. Of course he’s biased! His broadcasts have been worth millions more to the Democrats than his charitable giving. It’s like finding your cross-dressing, Pride necklace-wearing, Marlon Brando posters on the walls-ing friend in bed with another man and gasping, “You mean…You mean you’re gay?”

Any news outlet that wheels out ‘balance’ as an excuse for giving – for example – holocaust deniers equal air-time on issues relating to the holocaust is playing games, as simple as that.

No serious journalist or media agency interprets the desire for news to be impartial as meaning that you give loonies equal air-time. It is the rise of gonzo journalism and the like that has enabled the existence of Fox News. We need stricter requirements on the standards for news reporting so we can protect our demoncracy from misinformation, not further watering down. My two cents

SirenofBrixton,

We need stricter requirements

Please provide examples.

It is the rise of gonzo journalism and the like that has enabled the existence of Fox News.

I’m finding it quite difficult to see how Thompson/Wolfe are responsible for Rupert Murdoch and his febrile spawn.

Keith Olbermann will have served his suspension as of today, and returns to Countdown tomorrow evening. This is no surprise: Phil Griffin, head man at MSNBC, knows full well that Olbermann is his top rating host, and that pulling him from the 2000 hours EST slot would impact on the two hosts whose shows follow (Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell).

Maddow’s defence of Olbermann, and her illustration of the difference between MSNBC and Fox, is worth watching. I’ve embedded that video in this post:

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2010/11/phil-griffins-dilemma.html

[Also it appears that Griffin might not have suspended Olbermann if he'd broadcast a mea culpa on air]

I wouldn’t say Hunter S. Thompson was to blame

But the expectation of news neutrality was pretty taken for granted until the rise of a sort post-modern questioning about whether objectivity was even possible in the 60s and 70s. Thompson was certainly one of those who believed that objectivity is a myth and that there is truth in subjectivity and that’s where his style comes from. My saying ‘gonzo journalism is to blame’ is comment shorthand for saying that because it became OK to put forward subjective views as news reporting the space was created for a media outlet that holds unabashedly partisan views, makes no attempt at neutrality and frequently broadcasts out and out lies. It was the wedge that opened the door to Fox.

I actually agree with those who say objectivity is a lie. But I believe it is political neutrality is an important tenet in order to protect democracy and I think if you’re smart enough to run a media outlet you should be smart enough to figure out how to cover issues in a way that honours the aim of objectivity/neutrality.

@ukliberty – I’d like to see all political advertising banned. It doesn’t add value to the political process, consumes massive resources and reduces important issues to slogans. I’d also like to see some sort of licensing regime for news – if you want to claim that what you do is ‘news’ then you have to meet a certain standard. If you tell lies or support one political viewpoint over another then you pay massive fines and if you persist you lose the ability to call yourself a news outlet. Or something. I’m making this up as I go and I’m sure there are other ideas but ordinary people having access to factual information is critical to effective democracy and we’re not doing enough to protect that.

I’m going to stick with balance on this one.

It is perfectly possible to be balanced in one’s reporting while holding one’s own preferences too. I have never had any trouble being impartial in my work and analytically fair in my reporting despite being utterly partial when it comes to my personal politics.

If some one acts with bias in their job that is a problem. If they don’t, that is not.

meanwhile even balance only need go so far. reporters and media outlets can form opinions on some issues. So long as that doesn’t stray into the overtly or subtly party political.

@11 – “I actually agree with those who say objectivity is a lie. But I believe… political neutrality is an important tenet in order to protect democracy…”

You don’t think those are kinda mutually exclusive, then?

Media outlets should be “politically neutral” and yet “objectivity is a lie”… Striving for “neutrality” (on whose terms?) whilst implicitly accepting the impossibility of the task is futile.

You say: “if you want to claim that what you do is ‘news’ then you have to meet a certain standard…” – who, then, sets the standard? Does it become a function of the state? Do ‘independent’ judges decide what’s allowed and what isn’t? Or is it a corporate function? How is this mysterious entity funded?

Most importantly – how does it avoid the universal subjectivity (bias) you acknowledge exists?

News, media, information, so-called ‘facts’ – all are a function of competing ideologies. Unless you want to pursue some sort of Orwellian ‘One Truth’, you take your chances with the other interests.

“Fuck balance, some things are just true.”

You may think so, but this attitude just happens to be shared by authoritarians, evangelists, fascists, fundamentalists and nutjobs the world over – throughout history.

“The sign of good journalism is facts; the truth.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Good journalism is often fiction; it is polemic, it is storytelling – occasionally there are some facts involved (for any value of ‘fact’), but no-one remembers them.

SirenofBrixton,

I’d also like to see some sort of licensing regime for news – if you want to claim that what you do is ‘news’ then you have to meet a certain standard. If you tell lies or support one political viewpoint over another then you pay massive fines and if you persist you lose the ability to call yourself a news outlet. Or something. I’m making this up as I go and I’m sure there are other ideas but ordinary people having access to factual information is critical to effective democracy and we’re not doing enough to protect that.

If the media outlet makes explicit it’s partisanship I don’t see why they shouldn’t support their favoured political viewpoint. I think problems arise when, unlike Thompson who was unashamedly and explicitly partisan, there is a pretence about being non-partisan. What to do about that… I don’t know. You know Fox claims it’s news programmes and opinion programmes are separate and distinct?

With regard to “licensing regimes”… well, I return to my point above: who decides what the facts are? Quis custodiet ipsos newsmen?

Hmm. I think there is a huge difference between balance and personal preference.

Maybe a comparison would be for people who work in third sector organisations…many are party people, but for their role they work with all representatives and meet certain standards of fairness to all.

To me the BBC is the best in the world in terms of how it does it’s news. Nothing, especially via analysis/editing/choice of content is 100% unbiased. I know a good many BBC journos and gossip always goes around who is who (interestingly, having been in two parties, it is funny to see one side call Journo A a ‘nat’ and then vice versa a ‘Labour person’), but ultimately they pride themselves on their journalism.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that someone wanting to be into political journalism would not have an opinion on politics.

Andrew Neil is a good example. We all clearly know of his political persuasions, but to me he is dilligent in his work as a BBC journalist in terms of providing in balance. *puts tin hat on*

I know, lets set up a truth commission to keep the facts in line. Formed of the pure of heart and incorruptible they will be our champions ensuring that none of the news has any bias at all. They shall have perfect knowledge, no emotional ties, no family, no friends, etc….

There is always going to be some bias in reporting. Plurality of sources and allowing people to make up their own minds may not be a tidy solution but answers on a postcard for any better ones.

‘Science is the practice of the theoretical. ‘Facts’ in science are only true until something more true comes along. Everything is always ‘true for now’ – everyone assumed Newtonian theory had it sorted, then along cam Einstein etc. As such, discussing these issues is not like discussing a moral issue at all, and balance may be needed.’

Scientists accept that current theories are provisional in the sense that theories are incomplete or open to revision, not that ‘facts’ might be wrong. If they are wrong they’re not ‘facts’. It has never been a ‘fact’ that the sun orbits the Earth or that god created the Earth 6,000 years ago. Those beliefs aren’t even ‘theories’ in any meaningful sense.

Science doesn’t progress by suppressing other opinions – however scientists aren’t obliged to answer the same objections made over and over again by cranks and idiots too fucking lazy to read the literature already written on the subject.

@J – I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, no. There’s a huge grey area that we haven’t explored. See below for more.

@ ukliberty I can understand the appeal of the idea that if all outlets are allowed to be partisan then it’s all OK, but what that means is that politics becomes a ratings game. Instead of focussing on building an informed citizenship, the media is reduced to using shock and sensation tactics in order to win the ratings game – and we suffer because this amounts to misinformation and lies. I have written about this at more length on my blog, and perhaps it’s time for another bash at the topic.

Modern (western) life, as the marvellous Sir Ken Robinson recently said, is the most over-stimulating time in human history. We are literally bombarded with messages from dawn to dusk. People need a reliable sources of fact-based information – and no, it’s not sufficient to have the facts on the internet: most of us do not have time to investigate the truth behind the news and thus we are at the mercy of mass media’s views.

The press is not free if it is merely serving the interests of a wealthy elite to help them stay in power. We cannot confuse freedom of speech with unregulated media. Truth must count for something.

I take both of your points about who gets to police my fantasy licensing regime. I’m not saying there’s an easy answer. I’m just saying letting the lies and information continue is undermining our political system and that we should not let that happen without a fight.

@ ukliberty I can understand the appeal of the idea that if all outlets are allowed to be partisan then it’s all OK,

I didn’t intend to say it was OK. My line of thinking is that it’s not as bad as the alternative – the “fact police”.

I take both of your points about who gets to police my fantasy licensing regime. I’m not saying there’s an easy answer. I’m just saying letting the lies and information continue is undermining our political system and that we should not let that happen without a fight.

Can you give me three examples of lies that undermine our political system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

Says it all.

One of my favourite Lowry cartoons – shows a TV studio with the presenter saying ‘and to ensure a fair and balanced assessment of the latest government measures I have with me a government spokesman and a wild-eyed Trot from the lunatic fringe.’

Genius.

One should be objective on air, but anyone who expects journalists to have no political views of their own is an idiot. If Huw Edwards wanted to canvas for the Tories in his spare time or Jeremy Paxman wanted to give 10 grand to Labour – what sense would it make to object?

Here is a very interesting blog post, particular for those who believe that the left needs to become “more partisan” and cede less ground to opponents.

Are balanced arguments more persuasive?

“Foxification of UK news” What’s bad about that? With Fox, at least you know where their prejudices lie. You can build up your own version of the truth from watching that and other agencies. Better than our ‘impartial’ BBC

But Luis, that article doesn’t say which side wins!

However, global warming, whether we like it or not, is debated throughout the media and a sizeable minority of the population do not appear to believe that it is man-made

About the same number as people who believe in creationism actually.

Say Andrew Wakefield was on Newsnight when the MMR single jab became really controversial (I don’t know if he was). As I understand it, in terms of “the science”, such as it was, pretty much every expert on MMR, bar one or two, disagreed with him.

But it would have been typical of Newsnight’s / BBC’s idea of balance to represent the sides with a man each (and Paxman refereeing, probably biassed against Wakefield): with Wakefield on one side, and a qualifed person on the other. Wouldn’t that be ludicrous? Proportionately, it should be him in the studio opposite hundreds if not thousands of experts!

I’ll quote Poole again (because he is more eloquent): once you have created the image of two things balanced on a set of scales, you have also already made the argument that their masses are identical, that they need to be considered as equal…

BBC balance seems silly, on occasion, but I don’t know what the answer is.

@27 It’s not the numbers that matter when you are dealing with facts but the facts themselves.

See: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/presentation-speech.html

there is some overlap between this author’s definition of fact and opinion here.

“black people should not be kept as slaves” is an opinion
“slavery is inhumane and uneconomic” is a fact.

The former derives from the latter, and is hollow without mention of these reasons. It may be your actual valid and legitimate choice to prefer an inhumane and uneconomic society and in this way you may justify keeping black slaves, but don’t expect me to agree with you.

similarly “anybody denying a spherical Earth… is… a fruitloop” is confusing a general reality with scientific fact – the equatorial circumference is not equal to the polar circumference (nor is it a constant), so the earth does not meet the technical specificalion of a sphere, and the ripples on the planetary surface (known as hills and mountains) also upset the precise defiition.

So the problem with US news is not that it is right or wrong, but that it presents opinions as facts and thereby panders to the prejudices of the audience. Just as the author of this article attempts to do.

He also completely misunderstands the difference between bias and partiality: to be impartial is not to be unbiased.

So his opinion “Fuck balance, some things are just true” is just that – an opinion. And I couldn’t disagree more or more strongly.

Opinion is not scripture.

Bias always has implications.

The real problem with US news is the inherently conservative deferentiality within both the democratic and republican tending media. The individuals concerned are less journalists and more propagandists.

So Keith Olberman is guilty of professional misconduct in donating to a electoral campaign and while honorable journalists everywhere (if not company shareholders) will support his sacking it is entirely predictable that right-wingers will celebrate and left-wingers will complain.

Balance is always necessary as the only way to offset bias, but balance can present itself in a diverse set of ways, so to be effective it must be split in at least three-ways and although I find Fox News shocking, I’m also glad that its creation is pulling the US political establishment out of its catatonic complacency.

Obviously I also agree with Poole.