Journalistic "Balance" and "Integrity"

[PeachMonkey]

Given our recent discussions about "intelligent design" vs. evolution, supposed links between abortion and breast cancer, etc etc, I thought this article was particularly relevant:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

In the end, the continuous pressure from political attack groups for "balance", and accusations of "liberal bias", have pressured editors to place less emphasis on accuracy in reporting and more on making sure all points of view are covered equally -- no matter how baseless, out-of-left-field, or completely wingnut.

This perpetuates the anti-intellectual feedback loop that we're seeing in our society, where people who take the time to form opinions and positions based on reason, understanding, and knowledge are "elitists" who are "out of touch".

 

[Zepp]

To quote a scientist in the employ of the federal government whom I spoke with not long ago: "The president doesn't think too highly of intellectuals."

Apparently, neither does most of America anymore. Perhaps we are now in midst of the revolution that will usher in the "Age of Ignorance?" (As opposed to the Enlightenment.)

 

[Feisty Mouse]

No kidding.

Sheesh. It's not even sticking one's head in the sand - it's insisting that each person's opinion is equal, even when the evidence for one viewpoint is bunk.

Maybe this kind of thing is why I see undergrads come up to me and tell me that although they understand why they missed points on the last test, they feel that they worked hard and deserve a better grade, and what can I do about it?

:xtrmshock

 

[Phoenix44]

Yes, the assertion of "balance" at the expense of fact. BTW, there's another radcon principle operating in the article you cited. Fritz, Keefer, and Nyhan call it "The Rhetoric of Uncertainty" in their book, All The President's Spin. This technique is used by the Bush Administration to advance its scientific and environmental policy (or lack thereof). They pick an issue--global warming, for instance--and say "The scientific debate remains open." This isn't true, of course, but they continue with, "We must not rush to judgement before all the facts are in." Now unless you happen to be educated enough to know that the scientific evidence is entirely to the contrary, it sounds very responsible.

The "balance" issue is also reflected in "Letters To The Editor" pages. Opinion is, of course, opinion. But I am appalled by the increasing frequency with which editors will print letters that assert "facts" that are patently untrue. Just a few years ago, factually incorrect letters would never make it to print.

 

[Blooming Lotus]

the art of being objective and considering all information before passing judgement / casting opinion is priceless !

For more great reads and lastest study reports check out the archives at www.biomedcentral.com , also for sports med / research etc check out http://on.starblvd.net/meet/sub10/ or this http://sportsmedicine.about.com/mpboards.htm
or even this http://www.worldortho.com/oxsportsmed/


not political so much as informative health science but enjoy all the same.
cheers

BL

 

[heretic888]

To quote a scientist in the employ of the federal government whom I spoke with not long ago: "The president doesn't think too highly of intellectuals."

Apparently, neither does most of America anymore. Perhaps we are now in midst of the revolution that will usher in the "Age of Ignorance?" (As opposed to the Enlightenment.)

Most ironic, considering left-wing intellectuals are the ones that created our country.

 

[raedyn]

Excellect article, Peach. Thank you.