The media’s false concept of “balance”
|
Even After January 6, Some Media Can’t Kick Their Addiction to False Balance, Fair,
JULIE HOLLAR 18 Jan, 21, In the wake of the unprecedented events of January 6, many in corporate media—on both the editorial and reporting sides—have displayed a new and refreshing ability to apply accurate labels to people and their behaviors (“sedition,” “incitement,” “white nationalists,” etc.) and to apportion blame based on reality, not a wished-for fantasy of balance.
That false concept of balance, which FAIR has criticized for years (e.g., 9/30/04, 9/17/20), is finally coming under greater scrutiny. As Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan (1/17/21) recently wrote: “When one side consistently engages in bad-faith falsehoods, it’s downright destructive to give them equal time.” Considering that Trump has few allies left within the establishment—even many big businesses have publicly turned against him—perhaps it’s easier for journalists to cast off their commitment to false balance. But it’s far from inevitable. ……..https://fair.org/home/even-after-january-6-some-media-cant-kick-their-addiction-to-false-balance/ |
|
|
3 Comments »
Leave a comment
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (268)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 
Interestingly, I cannot access the FAIR article, perhaps because I am on a VPN. I was recently discussing the much-lamented Fairness Doctrine, which contrary to popular belief in some circles, did not require equal time for all fringe beliefs, but instead was intended—at a time when media was primarily radio and 3 big TV networks—that broadcasters could not avoid controversial issues or present only a single side. The airwaves were recognized as of limited frequencies and belonging to the public, with broadcasters licenses given as a public trust. I have not thought much about how it would be applicable to Internet, cable, etc., today, but it should not have been discontinued when it was.
That’ s strsnge
I have emailed the rest of the article to you
Thanks so much! Good article; the Fairness Doctrine and false equivalency are very different; I regret the loss of the former and despair of the latter.