Fair and Balanced

I've got CNN on in the background, and just noticed a correspondent describe David Kay's Senate testimony—still going on as I write and viewable on C-SPAN—as "very balanced" because it provided just a little bit of political fuel for Democrats and Republicans alike. At the risk of overinterpreting, I think that's psychologically revealing—a little bit of confirmation of what plenty of folks have already observed: The contemporary journalistic conception of "balance" and "objectivity" entails, not a judicious weighing of perspectives to arrive at truth, but a he-said-she-said hodgepodge that faithfully reflects talking points from both left and right.

Comments

[fyodor]

Good thing professional sports refs/umps don't operate that way!

Or...do they?

[John Q]

I think this gets at the heart of the complaint that "liberals are mostly intested in appearance and symbolism", which Rush and the Dittoheads are always raising.

Oh, and what are "Rush and the Dittoheads" interested in? The truth?? Ha, ha!

[nobody]

It's just role-playing to fulfill viewers' (and sponsors') expectations.

[rst]

The two-party system is tailored for idiots en masse, so that they can make a decision that more closely resembles the good-evil schtick they've been swallowing all their lives. It feels objective, because they've got good (their party) vs. evil (the other party), and everybody else being some lukewarm measure "between" the two. Give America five different front runners for president and I submit that 80% of the constituency will spontaneously combust. The media industry knows that the statistically greatest section of their viewers plays along with the bipolar routine. So they can safely pretend that all can be argued from one or more aspects between the jackass and the elephant, then make sure that their editors put enough of a mix to sell the "fair and balanced" thing, or whatever the channel claims. It helps to remember that the news is not being given to you, it's being sold to you, like any other facet of entertainment.

[Mark Anderson]

Randall,
I'm not sure if this is a liberal/conservative thing as far as who gains by the current media's notion of balance. I've heard Paul Krugman complain about this balance by claiming if the administration came out and said the world was flat, the headline would read: "World's Shape: Opinions Differ" I've seen this with the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design. Giving the proponents of ID equal time as scientists makes a very lopsided debate appear even.

Rst,
Our system of government favors a two party system, so until that changes, we won't move very far to having more choices.

[R C Dean]

Let the record show that I completely agree with Julian Sanchez on this one.

[Howard Owens]

I think Kay has been careful not to get sucked into either side's spin. Everytime somebody tried to suck him into a statement condemning Bush, he backed away or reframed the question. And when GOP Sentators looked for him to make arguments in support of Bush, he tapped down the rhetoric and wouldn't be led into a pro-war statement. I think he came across as credible.

This issue is far more nauanced than: Should we have gone to war over WMD, yes or no? People on the left and right want this to be an easy question with easy answers, but it's not that easy.

[alma hadayn]

I'm not sure there is any other way. Most political arguments are not easily reducible to a simple factual question- they involve choices of how to frame an issue, and other than trying to get as many voices in as possible, I don't see how one can define a notion of balance.

(Of course I exclude determinable factual issues, where doing your hw can get the truth. But again, I think many political arguments are not that simple.)

[jon b.]

Why does our system favor a two party system? I got the two party system rammed down my throat in Government class like it was part of the constitution. I understand that historically it has shaken out that way, but it seems that a 10 party system would be better for making the system actually work rather than the current political show which goes on in Washington. I currently believe that the two party system is simply an accounting efficiency to keep donors from having to write so many checks to both sides. I also believe that the treatment Nader got at the debates was proof that nothing short of armed insurrection could break the current hegemony.

The fourth estate seems more and more a wholly owned subsidiary of the two parties and their backers.

[dj of raleigh]

> The two-party system is tailored for idiots en masse,

[dj of raleigh]

>I think Kay has been careful not to get sucked into either side's spin.

[Lawyerly pinheads]

As the legal representatives of Fox News, we must insist that you remove the headline for this post, as it is a copyrighted trademark of the Fox Corporation. Your compliance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

[Jean Bart]

Yes, Kay didn't trumpet the Bush administration's cause ever - even back in 2002. 🙂

[shane]

That's very perceptive.

The media is now a part of the spin machine.

[Randall Loffelmacher]

I think this gets at the heart of the complaint that "liberals are mostly intested in appearance and symbolism", which Rush and the Dittoheads are always raising. The liberals at CNN view "balance" as the balancing of airtime, whereas what "balanced" means to most people is a careful consideration of all the data before arriving at a thoughtful conclusion. Just because CNN tells you that balance is equal airtime, does not make it so.

[Kevin B. O'Reilly]

What was the story of Kay's testimony? Surely, first it is the actual content of what he said about WMD in Iraq. A strong second, though, would be the political implications of his testimony and his views. In that sense, if Kay's testimony didn't seem to tip the political spin of his views one way or the other, then it was "balanced." That's a truthful statement by the correspondent.

The problem with aiming for the truth is that, guess what, most issues have a lot of gray area beyond "what's happenning?" which itself can often be a tricky question. So if you cannot honestly say, "Here is THE TRUTH," you can honestly say, "Here are differing perspectives from people in positions of authority or influence about what THE TRUTH is." Sure, to libertarians this may seems like a cop-out, since we've got a very particular set of ideas and beliefs we believe to be true.

Sorry, but I'd be scared if CNN presented a libertarian viewpoint on everything. I'd feel like I wasn't really getting a truthful, balanced picture of the world -- even if it was "right." This is why Fox News Channel is best consumed with caution.

[Lassiter Jones]

You mean balanced between talking points of "center" and "right," no? No viewpoint considered truly "leftist" in perspective has been presented by any major US news services in well over a decade.

Let's get it straight - Noam Chomsky is "left." Tom Daschle and Howard Dean are not. 🙂