Fair, Not Balanced

   For all the  talk about "fair and balanced" reporting in the news media, with the arbitrary goal of giving all sides of an issue equal space and time, this leaves no room for editorial judgement as to an opinion's news value or its relative importance.
   The argument is this: Report all positions equally and let the reader decide. But what if one side's views are so preposterous that they don't deserve mention at all, much less being given the same amount of space and time as another position with volumes of evidence to support it?
   In its zeal to be perceived as "fair and balanced," in response to loud complaints by radical fringe groups, journalism for decades has been giving every side equal mention in news stories.
   That's like quoting the Flat Earth Society in every aerospace story. Or citing an atheist during coverage of a major religious holiday.
   Or interviewing deniers in every story about climate change. This includes those who see snow in January as "proof" that the Earth is not warmer than it used to be.
   Set aside the volumes of specific data collected by meteorologists over the past 100 years or more. There are many residents of the U.S. Northeast who can remember ice skating on local ponds every winter. Can't do that any more.
   These same people now see mockingbirds in Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey year 'round, remembering a time in their youth when these birds were never seen north of Virginia. They also see other birds that no longer migrate, choosing to stay in North Jersey or Pennsylvania, for example, rather than fly south for the winter.
   Yet the deniers insist the climate is not changing. Perhaps the birds know better.

   In the name of "balanced coverage," many in the media have abandoned their role as news filters who decide the relative importance of various events and opinions, and have yielded to pressure from extremists who demand equal time.
   Maybe they don't deserve equal time. Report their views, certainly, no matter how irrational or even ludicrous they are, but there's no credible reason to compare them as equal to new evidence supporting a longstanding scientific theory or fact.
   For example, there are still some who insist the sun revolves around the earth, citing as "proof" their personal observation that the Sun moves from east to west, and therefore the Earth stands still, with no mention of why people don't fall away into outer space.
   So much for  Isaac Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.

   In the world of politics today, many journalists and commentators, especially TV talk show hosts, continue to provide the radical fringe with a platform to air their opinions in the name of "balanced" views.
   For years, editors have protested this as "false equivalence." Not every view or opinion is equal, either in news value or, more importantly, in fact.
   Yet because the heroes of the radical fringe are so beloved by their devotees that they can continue to spout things that are clearly false or misleading, knowing that the news media can be easily manipulated into broadcasting their views without challenge.
   There are, of course, fact checkers monitoring speeches and interviews for mis-statements made in ignorance or flat-out lies that pay no mind to fact or reality, but these challenges too often come after the falsehood is uttered on a TV interview show. A newspaper or magazine can print the contrary evidence the next day, of course, and Internet sites can run the challenges within minutes, but many of the True Believers delve only into Web sites that mirror their pre-set views, and either do not read newspapers or refuse to accept contrary evidence, dismissing the print media as biased, unfair, untruthful and not to be believed.
   Yet they instantly accept what their Beloved Leader says, regardless of the many times his comments have been proven false or merely ignorant.