Balanced, neutral journalism is RUBBISH and that's a FACT New research has revealed what we here at the Register have always known to be the self-evident, hard, cold, factual truth: which is that balanced, neutral journalism is not just incredibly boring, it is also bad for readers' mental health and turns them into apathetic drones who can't be bothered to engage with the world around …
Yes, but the rate of impending doom is ever so important. They used to ramble on an on about that in my Calculus classes. But besides, if we must observe the unbalanced, it is only fair that the hot blonde will be, someday, reading naked. I do appreciate the constant implication she is wearing no underwear, mind you, but eventually Rupert is going to have to clarify that.
I resent being called a "follower", by the way ...
"doomed to be run into the ground by morons and their brain-dead followers."
I would be inclined to think that this study proves that the average student's reading and comprehension skills are of a low standard, and that they are unable to draw their own conclusions from a balanced report, rather than that there is anything wrong with balanced neutral journalism.
What conclusion can you realistically derive from a balanced article? By definition, both sides have been given equal weight, and both sides equally believe themselves to be speaking the truth. So any conclusion you make is not based on the facts in the article, but rather you opinion of which side has more merit.
The specific problem is, here you have two sides, one claiming it will cost X and another saying is will cost Y. They can’t both be right. So one side is wrong, and the balanced nature of the article does not supply you with the information about which side is wrong. You would like to make a conclusion, but you know the facts are not accurate. It is no wonder they started feeling depressed.
Sure you could go out and research the issue yourself, but then what would be the point of buying the newspaper?
A balanced report does not automatically imply that both sides have equal merit. For example, I could write a story about how one group of people believes El Reg should post only IT-related stories, while another adores Bootnotes and wants it to continue. I could provide the arguments from both sides in a very balanced fashion, but one group would still clearly be wrong (because I'm a balanced reporter, determining which it is will be left as an exercise for the reader ;-).
Sure, it's a much easier topic than most in the real-world, but isn't that how decisions _should_ be made? By looking at both sides of the issue and deciding which one you agree with?
Just to be clear - my comments are more to do with the experiment than the real world. My original post was a reply to the statement that the students are obviously stupid for not preferring a balanced argument.
I still stand by the fact that the more balanced an article is, the more you will have to rely on other influences to make a decision. If you have no previous opinion, then a balanced article, by it's very nature is not going to sway you one way or the other.
However, my main point was really the second one, that one side was telling outright lies and the balance of the article was hiding this from you. An article which presents lies as truth is obviously a lie, and no basis for making an intelligent decision. In the real world, you would have to find other sources to tell you which of the two were telling lies. As far as the students are concerned, I am not surprised they had difficulty coming to a conclusion based on an article which was presenting contradictory facts as equally valid.
The real point is that you often can't be both balanced AND neutral. Giving nonsense equal weight with what is accurate and truthful may be balanced but it sure as hell isn't neutral.
Giving unjustified credibility to indefensible positions is taking sides with the stupid and/or malign. That's the way to end up with homeopathic cancer treatment, President Palin, and some interesting new wars.
In the example given it is obviously nice to have the additional information of which side was correct , and which was wrong . I dont see that as "biased journalism" if the author has provided that additional info. (as long as its not pure guesswork)
As for the students feeling suicidal with the "he said / she said" version - couldnt they just go online and look up the same info the other journalist did? students are suppsed to know how to do that.
actually i dont agree. i do want "Balanced, neutral journalism" , but with all the supporting facts and extrapolations ,
e.g
Politician A : " 2 + 2 = 4"
Journo: "Politician A says 2+2=4. We have verified this with a reputable expert in the field of mathematics and he concurs that in his expert opinion 2 + 2 does indeed = 4 "
...a politician would never say that. They would say "That is a hypothetical question and I really won't be drawn into answering. There are many aspects to 'two' that must be considered holistically and how they interact with society at large. This is why we have engaged in a public consultation to find out what the public wish 'two plus two' to equate to."
Or, if discussing costs "That was done under PFI and thus is commercially sensitive."
"PFI" is a way to fund government projects off-balance sheet (thus hiding the true cost from proper scrutiny). As a general rule PFI is very high-risk for the tax payer and costs a lot more than just doing it the old fashioned way. It also ties public expenditure into fixed contracts for decades that can only be varied at increased cost.
So if one used PFI to build (say) a hospital, then didn't need that hospital for whatever reason, one is screwed. One still needs to pay. If it turns out the hospital is too big, one's screwed. If the hospital gets the wrong kind of patients, one's screwed. Etc ad nausea.
The only things PFI is good for is ensuring MPs (or their pals/partners) can get cushy directorships and forcing future generations into crushing debt.
""PFI" is a way to fund government projects off-balance sheet (thus hiding the true cost from proper scrutiny). As a general rule PFI is very high-risk for the tax payer and costs a lot more than just doing it the old fashioned way. It also ties public expenditure into fixed contracts for decades that can only be varied at increased cost."
But is that fact or just your biased opinion?
Nope, as used by Gordon Brown PFI was used as a means of off-balance sheet public expenditure as future liabilities were not properly accounted for in the national books. That's a matter of fact and the OBR has started to make some inroads into this, and other future government liabilities whiach are not fully costed.
PFI was originally designed so that private companies, and not the state, bore the risks. Of course it has generally not worked like that, although a few PFI contractors went broke. No - the real reason for PFI being used is that it allowed for much higher rates of public provision of new capital-intensive items (hospitals, schools etc.) without, apparently, breaching public expenditure targets. Of course what had really happened was a lot of future liabilities had been incurred along with a hope that economic growth would make them affordable.
In essence, these are glorified hire-purchase deals, usually with maintenance and service contracts added.
More accurately:
Journo A: "Based on your statement that 2+2 does equal 4, how do you justify claiming expenses for £5000 when the cost of the building hire was "
Politician A : "No comment"
Politician B : "That invoice covered a number of items not specifically covered on the invoice that I am unable to name but I can assure you that I have not committed fraud"
Politician C : "£5000 is very reasonable for cleaning a moat"
Politician D : "I am not a thief!"
Politician E : "The taxpayer does get value for money for this investment despite the fact it will actually cost £100,000 over the next five years once over-runs and specification changes are taken into account. Being able to use this custom designed kettle today will allow civil servants to have twice as many catered meetings and hence double their productivity "
The world is very complicated. Truth isn't absolute. Only rigidly defined systems can produce right and wrong answers.
On most matters ... we just don't know. We have made some good educated guesses, and some damn good theories, but there's always enough doubt and uncertainty for some other equally educated and intelligent person to hold an opposing viewpoint.
Economics has schools in a way that basic arithmetic just doesn't. 2 + 2 = 4 might work for a maths paper, but as an argument for any kind of epistemology it's very Palinesque.
And when it comes to politics ... well my opinion is that we're all in this together and those on the right who spout "it's my money I earned at" are selfish people who don't deserve to be a part of society. I can advance a whole series of arguments in favour of this position, but ultimately it's just a value judgement and I'm smart enough to know it's not "true" beyone the meaning it has for my personal experience of life.
Surely you cannot doubt that you believe the programs that news produces and spin for you, and think it reality rather than virtually prepared for human consumption, or are y'all really so easily duped and programmed?
[blockquote]HonourableMember
11 March 2011 7:17AM
"Next BBC chairman Chris Patten: 'I hardly ever watch TV'"
Considering how TV is the prime brainwashing medium for the ignorant and suggestible masses, does Chris Patten's candid remark immediately disqualify him from being ranked as a contender.
To imagine that he would be good for the nation and the BBC [Nations Shall Speak Peace unto Nations] and nations whenever his intelligence is so obviously severely flawed and lacking in the broadbandcasting department, is clearly quite perverse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/10/bbc-chairman-chris-patten [/blockquote]
Please can we have better programs and less war games which are always magically funded with no worrying deficit conversations, or else the people will look for the fools making themselves obscenely paper rich promoting and spouting all the strife and nonsense, which is impoverishing everyone else, rather than enriching their existences.
Change the Great Game. Enough is enough already. Capiche
People have stopped learning how to think for themselves. Every newspaper article, even if it is an opinion piece, should have references to the original material. Does this happen in our mainstream media? Hardly ever.
I wouldn't argue that opinion pieces shouldn't appear, but they should always be marked as such and the original references should always be made clear. That's the only way we can hope that the public might actually think for themselves a bit or take columnists to task when they are clearly wrong. We shouldn't give any weight at all to almost any unreferenced material.
>"There are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says," asserts
> Raymond Pingree, a prof at Ohio State uni. "It makes readers feel like they can’t figure
> out what the truth is ... this attitude may lead people to tune out politics entirely, or to be
> more accepting of dishonesty by politicians."
So, if readers aren't told what to think, they feel that they can't figure out what the truth is.
do college students actually read newspapers in general? Most of their reading intake isn't going to be of that sort. How about doing the study on a group of graduates who are more used to analysing information critically? Or professionals? With this study (having only taken information from the article of course) it seems that I could just as easily conclude that the American education system doesn't prepare children for critical analysis as much as it should, so that when they have to analyse something for themselves they panic. If I wanted to be a dick about it I could probably go further and say it's a natural consequence of the high religiosity in America and the idea that believing things based on what so-and-so in authority says is better than actually looking at the facts themselves and making an informed decision. Maybe I should read the study.
The conclusion I draw from this is that these students shouldn't be left in charge of a pair of shoes, as they have no (apparent) ability to decide things for themselves. In particular, they seem to be saying that they cannot form their own opinions about things based on the facts of the matter, and must be told what opinion to have. I'm paraphrasing a little here, and probably reading too much into this, but there you are. In fact, it may be worse than I am saying, because it is reasonable to suspect that the specific opinion they want to be told to have matters less than the fact that they won't form it for themselves.
"the balanced, proper-journalism articles in which comments from both sides of the debate were offered produced feelings of nihilistic despair in the readers – they had been made to feel that they would never really know who was right or what was what"
at any rate, not without thinking for themselves and that's just too hard?
"and might as well vote for a politician based on how good his hairstyle and teeth were: or simply not bother at all."
so, no change there then.
"Those who had read the articles which presented information and delivered a conclusion based on it, by contrast, led the youngsters to feel that they understood the issue and might themselves usefully participate in society."
as sheep, presumably.
So in summary, spoon-feeding and mind control is favoured by thick and/or lazy people. And Americans.
" who had simply looked up stuff on the internet – for instance actually reading the text of the proposed bill, "
ITWM "as though by lazy news services who simply cut and paste articles from other services without actually bothering to check if any of it bears any resemblance to the truth...
The world is a complex place and things such as bills are rarely simply one thing or the other. They have many facets to them and these suit some more than others.
It seems to be the case that the Great Unwashed™ (and I am surely among them) just want to have complex phenomena summarized into one or two words (executive summary anybody?) so that it saves them a lot of mental work. For example, Obama bad | muslim | unamerican | etc. or Apple cool | toy | once a fruit now the owner of the world's thinnest CEO.
Methinks the time is ripe for demagoguery.
Private Eye and The Register are also the only two news publications I usually pay attention to. Recently I have also tried reading parts of The Economist but it doesn't seem to be as good as how I remember it from years ago. I seem to remember it used to have articles that could reasonably be described as "in depth" and "analysis", but a lot of it now seems to be blog-like waffling: a lot of words describing what the opinion of various groups of people might or should be, with just a few facts thrown in here and there. But the articles do at least present a point of view with some kind of justification for it.
When a journalist quotes a statement that is devoid of meaning, ambiguous or clearly inconsistent with other information in the article but then makes no attempt to resolve the problem - doesn't even seem to notice that there is a problem - I just want to punch them in the face. What they are doing is worse than wasting my time. If a publication contains many articles like that I won't read it.
Why not have both sides of the argument AND a little digestion?
I personally don't want to be told what is 'true'. Being given both sides of an argument helps. What doesn't help is when the media is that biased they interview a level-headed and well-spoken person for one side and a right-wing extremist for the other.
There are plenty he said/she said type stories that actually don't cover a straight-up conflict. Even, say, net neutrality has at its core some technical issues that just about everybody glosses over or hasn't even noticed, layered over with policy issues where various ISPs did some seriously questionable things and handled the fall-out poorly, giving fertile ground to huge discussions and push that inevitably caused big corporate to push back, and so on, and so forth.
Or, on an entirely different note, there was a comment not too long ago that the whole (entrenched!) he said/she said approach to science was basically bunk. Say you're a journo and you report some scientific findings in biology or maybe about a dino dig in some desert, and then you ring up the local church for a "balanced" view.
That is a very shinily polished "high quality journalism" turd. Very nice gloss, but still a turd.
In fact, it wasn't journalism, but stirring up controversy where there is none, while hiding behind a "I'm a journo, I'm neutral, honest!" mask. That this is easy to do because too many people don't understand the one has nothing on the other is one of the very reasons why such anti-science movements can exist. And our dear journo isn't helping. That the journo didn't understand that journalism is more than simply picking up some story and then finding a different voice to pose as a counter-view for that "fair and balanced" touch is fairly damning on the journo and whoever taught him.
You're right that simply sticking labels on each and everyone isn't very useful. I would contend that "fair and balanced" is useful in those cases where you do have a straight-up conflict, but it is a tad overused and there are plenty other ways to bring the news and even stir in a bit of opinion or analysis without unduly colouring the reporting, and that in fact most of those other ways go severely underused.
Arts graduates. To a man. They are either scared of Maths & Science or deep down, have some kind of magical view of reality. A few attempt to understand, but the prevalence of terms like "nerd", "geek" or "anorak" in journalism make it clear that scientists etc. are "the other". It's come to the point where people will wear a "nerd" or "geek" (originally a carnival freak show performer who bit the heads off live chickens) label with pride, a bit like the appropriation of the word "queer" by gay men.
They just don't understand or care that what they're doing is the same as having a discussion where one side says "2+2=4" & the other side says "2+2 = unicorn shit or whatever I say it is" and treating them as equally valid POV.
Education,Education,Education.....
If only because everyone and his dog now has a blog and tweets opinion every day. Most, by far, is bunk and even fair and balanced bunk is still bunk. The problem then, isn't in the fair and balanced bit.
It is no surprise that most people are happiest when told what to think. That's been a success for ages (see: world religions, strong leaders) but certainly isn't the hallmark of good journalism. Then again, he said/she said is the lazy way to gloss journalism with a "quality" veneer. All of them are not what journalism ought to be about.
I don't mind opinion from Journalists, as long as they show their facts and explain how they've come to that conclusion. Basically sound intelligence analysis, to build on top of facts that for best scoop are gathered yourself. And yes, that means that he said/she said still has a place, but certainly not as sole trick to make a living with. It also means having to have a deep understanding of the field you're writing about, preferrably formally trained and a couple years in the field at least.
In an ever more data-riddled world, figuring what's important and what's not is an important skill, and there Journalism can still make a difference. But the lazy sods now rolling out the back end of journalism schools can barely write. Someone's got their work cut out for them.
If an article is badly wrong (or annoyingly right) there will be complaints from the commentards. The better commentards will provide links to support their position. Even without links, commentards can point out where to look further, or what sort of things commentards missunderstand. One of the thing I like about the Register is that most of the journalists are prepared to have criticism tacked onto their articles. The criticism is a mixture of incoherent drivel, attempts at humour, valid questions, useful answers, and sometimes evidence for what is really going on.
I like journalists to give their opinions. I can decide for myself whether those opinions are derived from bias, ignorance or insight. It is much easier to reach those conclusions when there are links to the source material. I can hunt down a particular draft EU directive, but it is much easier if the journalist provides the link he used for his research.
If Alice says the battle of Hastings was in 1066, and Bob says it was in 1076 that does not mean the right year was 1071. If a journalist provides a link to the appropriates articles in The Times and The Sun for 1066-10-14 then Bob and editorial balance should be filed in the bin.
From my understanding of the article it follows that people prefer when journalists bother to investigate the facts and attempt to understand something about the matter at hand rather than when they try to hide their total ignorance of the subject by quoting numerous "experts". Hardly a big surprise...
I have not very often seen much 'balanced, fair journalism'. Virtually every piece of journalism I have ever seen has bias in it, including pieces here.
Personally I find it better when the journalist expresses their own opinion/bias but still tries to defend the opposing view to their bias. Certain contributors here, sadly, do not live up to that expectation and throw in random comments at other things that they don't really seem to know about but thought it would somehow be relevant.
Mr Orlowski is a shining example: some of his discussions about the rights of 'freetards vs paytards' show his bias clearly enough but in those he does at least go to a little trouble to argue the opposite view. Not a lot of trouble, mind, but he does at least attempt it - which means he's seeing the issue from both sides and I respect that, even though it's biased, because at least I'm familiar with his bias - and it would be fair, but not balanced.
If you have a report that's fair *and* balanced, you really have to be asking deeper questions.
So people prefer it when journalists actually research the background of a debate and present that evidence, rather than just reporting what people said. And that's bad because? Just because this style of journalism tends to be opinionated doesn't mean that it will be, or that it should be discounted.
I was somewhat amused that Page wrote this article.
Only I seem to recall that one of the objectives of higher education is to develop the ability of students to form their *own* opinions.
A process which this group would appear to be a *long* way from completing.
We might also note how representative the average US college student is of a typical newspaper or news reader.
We might start by asking *if* they read a newspaper watch TV news at all.
Just a few thoughts.
Brits may not be familiar with the Canadian-produced "Talking to Americans," wherein comic Rick Mercer questioned American college students (and the odd prof) and a few politicians with preposterous "facts" about Canada. Could likely be found on YouTube for those curious.
Best moment: asking Republican pres candidate contender GW Bush to congratulate Canadian PM Jean "Poutine" (Chretien) on something or other. He did, repeating the name. Poutine, of course, is a Quebecois dish consisting of French fries topped with fresh cheese curds, covered with brown gravy or sauce.
I agree with the premise of the research, but it could have used a more reputable base.
"There are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says," asserts Raymond Pingree, a prof at Ohio State uni. "It makes readers feel like they can’t figure out what the truth is ..."
Don't scientists do this 'reading both sides of an argument' stuff all the time? Do scientists despair they can't figure out what the truth is, then? Wow. It's a wonder anything gets done with all these depressed scientists around.
The only time I despair I can't figure out what the truth is is when I read lazy-ass journalism that just parrots the official figures without digging any deeper, or citing any research, or even trying to engage with the subject at hand.
Yes, it's true that journalism that just reports what each side says is crushingly boring. Just read any of the major American papers.
But that's mostly because, as so many other comments have pointed out, politicians and businesspeople have long ago learned to say nothing at varying lengths and in sugar-coated words. Obviously, reading about how one person said nothing and then, in reply, another person said nothing in a different way has little appeal.
How different from the days of Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox; Gladstone and Disraeli; or even Churchill. Luckily we have new sources of substantial intellectual fare in such sites as Slashdot and The Register.
A problem with so-called balanced reporting is the need to go off and find two opposing points of view even when one side is a bonkers or minority view.
An example from a few years back was Global Warming (a term found to be too biased) aka Climate Change. Despite the majority of scientific opinion pointing to man-made influences being detrimental to the environment, journalists still had to find someone who disagreed for “balance”. Of course it could be that scientists had to take the view they did in order to get funding?
I reckon there must be some truth behind this research though - I still get a feeling of nihilistic despair if a climate change discussion kicks off again in the media...
that journalism involves the search for truth. When I had my introductory journalism class in college, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I was interested in the search for truth, I needed to go to a different building where they held philosophy classes. Journalists could only report what other people said. And if you did that for long enough, you might eventually be rewarded with an opinion column in which you could pontificate on your beliefs, but it still would not be truth. You might occasionally be able to find a fact, but even then you were better off quoting someone as saying it was a fact than reporting it was a fact.
Personally, I suspect the prof of having a predisposition toward the conclusion he reached, and that predisposition colored the results of his findings. Not because I disagree that clear positions are superior to balanced and neutral, but because I've never known an American college student who suffered the depths of despair he describes.
I love that little boot-note at the end, basically an official recognition from the reg that it's all rubbish (although I would of put it in the title). I don't know what your motives are, but it's bleeding obvious that is isn't public education, because that requires actual facts. I'm not really sure where to start on this, knowing nothing at all about nuclear poisoning, still... i have followed the scientific journals through this, and have heard actual experts analysis (no quotes like "say maybe something like 25%") and they all (an i mean ALL), seem to think this was pretty damn serious. they also seem to think that the effects of this will by in large not be noticeable for 10 to 20 years. so here's the deal. if the workers who worked in saving the plant and Japan start getting sick, you will loose ALL credibility.
I also love how you've referenced this treehugger.com article which ends with "the desperation of the nuclear advocates is becoming more and more obvious. We must be on the right track then" as opposed to the link below from the actual source, which to me indicates that you haven't even read it. Or the fact that instead of quoting scientists, you reference (and badly) Japanese politicians, as some sort of honest authority with no ulterior motives. or that "250 millisievert" which is going to be lowered, without mentioning that it was at a 100 millisievert before the catastrophe, and they've changed it to allow the workers to stay there.
There's also the fact that workers have measured their annual radiation limit in 7 minutes 30km away from the plant. (I can reference this, but I can't be arsed, just go to DemocracyNow.org and find it if you want to)
The one thing I do agree with you is this, many people got hurt by this disaster, this human tragedy is greater then the worst case scenario, and this one was a really REALLY close miss, if it wasn't for the wind blowing to sea, the snowstorm, and the massive sacrifice of the workers inside, it could of been much worst, but there are still many Japanese people who have lost their homes and families in this disaster, and focusing on the nuclear danger while ignoring it is also dangerous.
Anyone remembers this: http://xkcd.com/748/ ?
Why on earth will you want to have LESS regulations, and less safety? Ok, say you are right and I am wrong, better, say uranium (or what ever if in the air there now) is really good for you, has no harmful effects, and in fact prolongs your life, what's the argument for less regulation? Is this just blind trust in that heads on industry know best? (judging by the way you reference politicians on this I guess that's what you believe). I am wondering, have you got any friends in the nuclear and or arms industry? are you receiving nice payout for this? have you got any shares in it?, or are you a truly passionate nuclear enthusiast?
(And Monbiot, don't talk to me about Monbiot)
I am sure you can find "actual" scientists who will have evidence to support your argument (after all there are still scientists who can produce seemingly credible evidence that smoking is good for you and global warming is a globalist conspiracy). Next time, try and reference them, it will make it harder to discredit you (and take the piss out of you too)
As for the public health and safety, only time will tell
I have plenty more where this came from, but for now...
AC obviously, you what's the point of slandering people on the internet if you can't hide your identity!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
