Who Decided There Are Only Two Sides to an Issue?

Our News Media’s Obsession with Reporting “Both Sides”

In recent years, the con­cept of re­port­ing “both sides” has be­come in­creas­ing­ly pop­u­lar in the me­dia. This ap­proach in­volves pre­sent­ing two op­pos­ing view­points on a par­tic­u­lar is­sue, with the aim of pro­vid­ing a bal­anced and im­par­tial ac­count of the sit­u­a­tion. How­ev­er, while this ap­proach may seem fair and ob­jec­tive on the surface, it is not with­out its prob­lems. Perhaps the most glaring difficulty is that there are almost never simply two sides to anything. To report two sides without giving context is to serve up a wonderful word salad with an apologetic “I hope you like it!” dressing, flavored by a Karen-like arrogance.

“Both sides” re­port­ing usually cre­ates a false equiv­a­lence be­tween two apparently oppos­ing view­points. We normally think about the two sides issue when we hear the reporter say the MAGAs are saying “ABC” but the other side is saying “XYZ.” But this is not two sides of anything. It is merely a reporter following the corporate guidelines of the organization with whom he or she is employed. This can be par­tic­u­lar­ly prob­lem­at­ic in sit­u­a­tions where one side is pro­mot­ing mis­in­for­ma­tion or pro­pa­gan­da, as we all have just seen in the case of Dominion v. Fox defamation case. Fox, it turns out, doesn’t report the news of the day; it instead proffers nearly comedic episodes of sensational soap opera-quality exhortations to support white folks. I don’t mind supporting white folks but why do I have to tan my testicals to do so? For ex­am­ple, if a news out­let were to present the views of cli­mate change de­niers along­side those of climate sci­en­tists, it could give the im­pres­sion that there is a gen­uine de­bate about the re­al­i­ty of cli­mate change. When in fact, the over­whelm­ing sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus is that it is a real event and press­ing is­sue.

This false equiv­a­lence can also be harm­ful in sit­u­a­tions where one side is promot­ing harm­ful or dis­crim­i­na­to­ry views. One may wish to be mindful of the agenda of any given news organization. When George Floyd was killed, the news organizations reported on the event. Some decried the shame the police should suffer within themselves and others decried that some protesters tried to burn public buildings and looted stores. That is not an example of two sides of anything. The cops were wrong and the man died. Rotten no good folks used George’s death as an excuse to loot stores. It turned out to be good for rousing the people up to protest something. Nothing was changed because of the protests however. And all that really occurred was that each faction of the political rainbow got to say, “Hooray for our side.” This should have been a sit­u­a­tion where the me­dia realized its re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­mote social jus­tice and equal­i­ty. I think it would be fair to say the media kind of did its job, but then kinda just ain’t good enough.

An­oth­er prob­lem with “both sides” re­port­ing is that it can cre­ate a false sense of bal­ance, where the me­dia feels com­pelled to present both sides of an is­sue even when one side is clear­ly more im­por­tant or ur­gent than the oth­er. For ex­am­ple, I suspect any fairly reasonable person with a modicum of common sense can understand that the leading cause of death in children is gun related violence, which is an important issue which must be addressed. I don’t see how showing another pile of teddy bears and flowers at the scene of the tragedy is showing a side of anything at all anymore than showing the evening interview of another republican senator allowing that “guns don’t kill kids, people kill kids” is showing the opposing side of the morbidity of the American culture.

Yet another problem of “both sides” reporting is when there are sit­u­a­tions where the media considers one side to be more pow­er­ful or in­flu­en­tial than the oth­er. This can cre­ate a situation where the me­dia gives un­due weight to the views of the perceived pow­er­ful side, even when they are less valid or sup­port­ed by ev­i­dence than the views of the less pow­er­ful side. Let’s take Ronnie vs. Mickey Mouse as a most illustrative ex­am­ple. Ronnie thinks that he has the right to punish Mickey for the mere fact that Mickey’s world must be more inclusive than Ronnie’s world. But the media has an unfashionable need to report Ronnie’s vengeance as equal to Mickey’s outrage. Ronnie just does not have the right to punish Mickey Mouse for saying what he thinks. Only Minnie Mouse gets to tell Mickey what to think. For the media to report those two events as equal is just Goofy.

An­oth­er is­sue with “both sides” re­port­ing is that it can cre­ate a false sense of neu­tral­i­ty, where the me­dia feels com­pelled to present both sides of an is­sue even when they have a clear bias or agen­da. This can lead to a sit­u­a­tion where the media presents both sides of an is­sue as equal­ly valid, even when one side is clear­ly pro­mot­ing a par­tic­u­lar agen­da or ide­ol­o­gy. The current example which we all must endure is the media reporting that Mikey and Dark Brandon having classified documents is the same as Big Orange having hundreds of classified documents and refusing to turn them over to the proper authorities. No one in the media is neutral on these issues. But it’s fairly rare to hear a news anchor come right out and say that they are appalled that Big had documents he could have and might very well have shared with unfriendly people.

Fi­nal­ly, “both sides” re­port­ing can also be prob­lem­at­ic in sit­u­a­tions where there is a lack of con­sen­sus or agree­ment on an is­sue. This can cre­ate a sit­u­a­tion where the me­dia presents both sides of an is­sue as equal­ly valid, even when there is lit­tle or no ev­i­dence to sup­port one side or the oth­er. This can be par­tic­u­lar­ly prob­lemat­ic in sit­u­a­tions where the me­dia has a re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­mote ac­cu­rate and evidence-based re­port­ing.

How the media covered the 2020 election demonstrates this point fairly well. It was soon obvious that Big Orange had lost and that Dark Brandon had won. But the media continued to report that Big Orange was claiming fraud without any proof at all. How could responsible people permit Big to rant and rave about something that everyone knew was pure poppycock? One has to question if January 6 could have happened without the both sides reporting practice in the media.

“Both sides” re­port­ing may seem like a fair and im­par­tial ap­proach to jour­nal­ism, but it is not with­out its prob­lems. From cre­at­ing a false equivalence be­tween two op­pos­ing view­points, to pro­mot­ing harm­ful or dis­crim­i­na­to­ry views, “both sides” re­port­ing is flatly misleading in a num­ber of ways. As such, we all hope the me­dia is aware of these is­sues and will constantly strive for ac­cu­ra­cy, impartiality and fair­ness in reporting. If they were to do so, they could perhaps pro­mote a more in­formed and en­gaged pub­lic, and to con­tribute to a more just and equitable so­ci­ety. I think there are journalists who actually are aware and simply refuse to kowtow to corporate demands.

Forging Agreement’s newest on-demand workshop is available on Teachable now. Learn more about the ideas that John introduces in his blogs in the Program Theory On-Demand Workshop!

One way to think about how your mind works is to consider it as a biocomputer. It has an operating system and different types of applications and programs that run when called, in similar fashion to a regular computer. The results of this workshop will give you new ways to consider your own beliefs, emotions, feelings and logical thoughts and how you can choose to modify them to meet your own requirements.

The workshop combines a series of on-demand videos with group discussions. Program Theory is taught by John Worthington and Paul Grenci. Contact @forgingagreement on Facebook or Instagram or email [email protected] for more information!

The most recent online Reality Creation Through the Dyad Workshop has just wrapped up. The Dyad workshop is an exploration into the relationship that exists between two people- any two people. A Dyadic relationship can be with a spouse, significant other, business partner, co-workers, family members, etc. These relationships can be wonderful and challenging all at the same time, but that is the beauty of relationships; traversing the good, the bad and everything in between.

In this interactive workshop, couples/individuals are afforded the opportunity to examine ever so common problems and tried and true solutions that guarantee an ongoing relationship if one is warranted.

This workshop will be happening on a monthly basis and runs over 2 weeks of 4 consecutive evenings. Contact @forgingagreement on Facebook or Instagram or email [email protected] for more information!

If you would like to support John, please consider subscribing to Medium using his referral link. Due to Medium not supporting mobile-based referrals, please use a desktop browser to sign-up. This ensures that a portion of your commission goes straight to John to support his work on this blog. You will get unlimited access to all of John’s blogs, plus unlimited access to thousands of other writers. Thank you!