Forgive the late entry into this discussion, but it seems to me that "fair" and "balanced" are frequently inconsistent as goals.
To be "fair" is to try to state the truth as much as one can, without trying to slant it or skew it to favor one or another of the candidates.
To be "balanced" is to give equal weight to various sides in a conflict.I think one ought, as much as one can, to be "fair" in covering political issues.
But what happens (hypothetically) when one viewpoint is clearly well-articulated, well-supported, and resonates with a large portion of the viewpoint's potential audience, and another viewpoint is just inarticulate grunts and name-calling? For the sake of "balance" do you give equal time to both "sides?" Do you enlist a crackpot scientist to spend just as much time spewing illogical garbage as the respected scientist has in explaining a complicated matter? Especially if giving that respected scientist twice as much time might result in a clear and helpful explanation, when giving "equal" time only assures that the audience or reader will not be able to understand either perspective? In the current election, to take another hypothetical example, if McCain is leading 12 major polls while Obama is only leading in one small poll taken on one college campus, do we give equal time to each side to present and defend both "sides?" That would be "balanced." But to be "fair," we should give 12 times more time to the other polls than to the one narrow, limited one.
The problem is not just in allowing "scientists" to have more weight in explaining things than perhaps they should; the problem is that in trying to be "balanced" we are no longer being "fair."
Phil Enns wrote:
My claim is that we can't say what is balanced coverage, only what is obviously unbalanced. . . . . It seems to me that the scientists you are putting your faith in are more of those same despots, just wearing lab coats. Do we really want scientists telling us what news we should accept as truth and what we should reject as lies? Do we really want scientists to be telling us what of our 'everyday' lives is true andwhat is propaganda?
-- ------------------------------------------------ "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence and ignorance." ------------------------------------------------ John Wager jwager@xxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
