Balance in the Media

In my opinion. And I think a lot of people will agree. It is the job of the news media to report the truth in a comprehensive and unbiased fashion. The whole idea behind journalism should be to seek out what the truth of a story it and report it as such. In many cases there are two very distinct sides to an issue and the reporting should attempt show these two sides without bias.

But what happens when there are two sides only one side is truth and the other lies? Should it be the job of the media to illuminate both sides of the pseudo-debate and report each equally? This is where balance in the media really comes unstuck. Too often it seems that the media will give equal weight to ideas and view points that have no basis or support simply in the name of balance. When there is clearly a truth to one side of the issue. It should be the job of the journalist to report it as such.

This is partially a result of the attempt by journalists to avoid any share of responsibility for the information they provide. As one Journalist recently said.
"Reporters are messengers – their job is to tell, as accurately as they can, what has been said, with the benefit of such insight as their experience allows them to bring, not to second guess whether what is said is right”.
What a load of rubbish. As long as Journalists are allowed to hide behind this kind of reasoning. They can distance themselves from any negative consequences that may result from the dissemination of bad information. By the very fact that they are providing information to the public. Information that may be complicated and have the potential to impact lives. They have a responsibility to make sure that the information has some real truth behind it.

Journalistic laziness is also a contributor to this problem. Because of the speed of the news cycle and the competition between reporting sources. There is a tendency for information to be reported as quickly as it is obtained without much effort put into ensuring it's veracity or worth. This leads to the publication and dissemination of bad, and possibly wrong, stories and reports. If a little more effort were put into fact checking and verification. I'm sure it would lead to stories of far higher quality and accuracy.

Probably one of the most prevalent forms of bad reporting. Is the creating of a false spectrum on an issue. This happens often in the reporting of stories relating to health and medicine.
A good example is some of the coverage of the vaccine autism link in the US. On one side of the issue are some parents and children with autism. On the other side is the medical community and the now more than a decade of research that shows conclusively there is no link between vaccines and autism. The correct way to report this story is to say what the evidence shows. The way it is most often reported is a parent will appear and tell their heart wrenching story of dealing with an autistic child. Followed by a few minutes of some random doctor or official saying that the link between vaccines and autism doesn't exist.
There are not two sides to this story. The truth is clear and should be reported as such. By not taking this approach the media surely must share some of the blame for spreading the false information that in this case is costing actual lives.

In conclusion. The media has an obligation to the public to ensure that the information they provide is accurate and is the truth. They can and should be held accountable for the dissemination of bad and harmful information to the public.