The Truth About ‘False Balance’ - The New York Times: TO anyone who has avoided the debate over “false balance,” apologies for disturbing your bliss. But it’s necessary, because those who haven’t heard this phrase are missing out on one of the more consequential debates to engage the media in years.
False balance, sometimes called “false equivalency,” refers disparagingly to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked heavily on one side.
As we enter the final sprint of an extraordinary presidential campaign, the use of this term is accelerating, and it typically is used to attack news outlets accused of unfairly equating a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s.
This is where The New York Times comes in. Invariably it is the news organization most associated with the ignoble cause of seeking balanced coverage. I suspect The Times is a preferred target for two reasons. It has aggressively covered Clinton going back to Whitewater. And it’s the big gorilla in the room.
False balance, sometimes called “false equivalency,” refers disparagingly to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked heavily on one side.
As we enter the final sprint of an extraordinary presidential campaign, the use of this term is accelerating, and it typically is used to attack news outlets accused of unfairly equating a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s.
This is where The New York Times comes in. Invariably it is the news organization most associated with the ignoble cause of seeking balanced coverage. I suspect The Times is a preferred target for two reasons. It has aggressively covered Clinton going back to Whitewater. And it’s the big gorilla in the room.