“Balanced Journalism” vs. the Truth

Journalism & Democracy

Contemporary journalists appear to have decided they’ve done their job as long as they have presented opposing viewpoints in their reports. They’ve given both sides a chance to speak and don’t need to dig any deeper. Whatever the truth may be, at least their report is politically “balanced”.

What have we learned from the last four years of this “balanced” news? With respect to the occupation of Iraq, we have learned that the conservative “balance” has been wrong and worthless. Fox News said the war was going well, when it wasn’t. Fox News said the economy was strong, and it wasn’t. What they passed along as “balanced” news was piecemeal information balanced with a pro-administration lie.

It’s not just Fox. A political interviewer for another network said that news discussions prior to the Iraq invasion were pro-administration because Democrats failed to give a rebuttal to the administration. Pontius, you crucified our country.

The shame of it is that citizens of a democracy need to be adequately and objectively informed about facts in order to determine the best way to deal with problems they encounter. Perhaps the lessons of Iraq will convince more institutional journalists to join Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay in going beyond the talking-points they’re fed, to uncover the truth. It might get them more respect. Regardless, the new democratic media of the Internet – YouTube, blogs, Google, etc. – have given the citizens themselves new tools for getting closer to the truth, for uncovering the lies, and for informing fellow citizens about them. And you will see those tools used more and more.