Journalists can sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by trying too hard to ‘balance’ a story or incorrectly treating elements of a story as being roughly equal.
This article looks at ways of avoiding two errors, applying ‘false equivalence’ and ‘false balance’, which are both about making inaccurate comparisons.
False equivalence is when you say that two or more things are the same, when in fact they are significantly different.
An example of false equivalence is to state that “politicians are all the same”. They are not. They might have similarities and some common attributes but that does not mean they are the same.
False balance is when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, when in fact the evidence weighs heavily in favour of one side.
An example of false balance is the treatment of the climate change debate. Some coverage presents it as a dispute between two evenly matched camps. It isn’t. The finding that human activity is driving global warming rests on several independent lines of evidence – atmospheric physics, ice cores, ocean heat records, satellite data, and climate models built separately by different teams, in different countries, using different methods.
These independent approaches converge on the same conclusion, and that convergence – not a headcount of scientists – is what gives the consensus its weight. Surveys of the published research put the figure of scientists agreeing at around 97 per cent, but the number is only meaningful because it reflects independent work arriving at the same answer, not scientists repeating each other.
A journalist covering this story should ask not just how many experts hold a view, but whether their conclusions were reached independently and have withstood scrutiny and replication. Giving equal airtime to a fringe position without applying that same test is false balance.
Ironically, many cases of false balance happen because the journalist is trying to avoid being biased.
When reporting a controversy, quite properly the journalist does not want to take sides. But sometimes it is necessary to show that one side’s arguments and evidence are much more persuasive than the other side’s.
An example here is Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he won the 2020 US Presidential election. He has failed to produce any evidence to support that claim and has lost numerous court battles challenging the result. So it is false to present his claim as a viable argument.
False equivalence and false balance can both be used deliberately to mislead people. They are often used in misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Or they can be examples of lazy thinking by the journalist.
Either way, they are inaccurate and care must be taken to avoid using them. In order to avoid using false equivalence and false balance keep the following in mind:
- Justify: When you are tempted to say that two or more things are equal, ask yourself if you can justify the statement.
- Explain: If the comparison is likely to be controversial, explain why you think it is valid.
- Validate: Do not accept or repeat other people’s statements of equivalency, without testing their validity.
- Reflect: When covering a dispute, make sure you reflect accurately all sides of the argument. If some of the arguments are questionable, explain why.
It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.
