This perception of a dichotomy in news is a brain worm that needs to be excised from everyone's mind.
What's the "balanced" commentary for something like the JFK assassination, for example?
LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because LHO was a communist.
LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because LHO was crazy.
LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because the CIA paid him to (and then killed him).
LHO was a patsie and the president was shot by a second gunman from the grassy knoll because the CIA wanted to invade Cuba.
Off the top of my head those are the stories that would need "balanced commentary".
News organization don't need to be unbiased and they don't need to be balanced. What they need is a to stop catering to rabid political fanbases who've got involved in the team sport of politics not out of some sense of civic duty to their fellow man but out of loneliness and a need to belong[1]. News organizations are the mirror reflecting us, not the other way around.
Balanced means making the strongest argument in favor of a position.
Or, as the HN guidelines put it: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Balance critically does not mean making disingenuous straw man or strong man arguments to advance a specific agenda.
Which is the guise it usually appears in today.
E.g. 'parineum is against balance in news because they believe there is one truth and other ideas shouldn't be given merit'
vs
'parineum is concerned about the de facto realization of balance as a covering for expressedly partisan viewpoints, themselves stemming from and catering to the polarization of a poorly informed audience'
One of those presupposes the answer. The other makes me curious and has multiple answers.
Making a bad argument on behalf of a group you dislike isn't balance. Making the strongest argument and debating it is.
Comments
This perception of a dichotomy in news is a brain worm that needs to be excised from everyone's mind.
What's the "balanced" commentary for something like the JFK assassination, for example?
LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because LHO was a communist. LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because LHO was crazy. LHO was the lone gunman who shot the president because the CIA paid him to (and then killed him). LHO was a patsie and the president was shot by a second gunman from the grassy knoll because the CIA wanted to invade Cuba.
Off the top of my head those are the stories that would need "balanced commentary".
News organization don't need to be unbiased and they don't need to be balanced. What they need is a to stop catering to rabid political fanbases who've got involved in the team sport of politics not out of some sense of civic duty to their fellow man but out of loneliness and a need to belong[1]. News organizations are the mirror reflecting us, not the other way around.
[1] https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2020/03/20/the_lone...
Balanced means making the strongest argument in favor of a position.
Or, as the HN guidelines put it: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Balance critically does not mean making disingenuous straw man or strong man arguments to advance a specific agenda.
Which is the guise it usually appears in today.
E.g. 'parineum is against balance in news because they believe there is one truth and other ideas shouldn't be given merit'
vs
'parineum is concerned about the de facto realization of balance as a covering for expressedly partisan viewpoints, themselves stemming from and catering to the polarization of a poorly informed audience'
One of those presupposes the answer. The other makes me curious and has multiple answers.
Making a bad argument on behalf of a group you dislike isn't balance. Making the strongest argument and debating it is.