Fair and Balanced – 2022

Two Sides

There are two sides to every issue – that might be the “theme” of this third decade of the twenty-first century.  And if you take one side, you aren’t supposed to “listen” to the other.  Take your stand, choose a side, make up your mind:  then don’t let an ounce of doubt ever make you question.  And go find “affirmation”, information that wholly supports your view. 

Like it or not, the motto of Fox News, “fair and balanced”, is what’s supposed to happen.  Not that Fox News has ever been “fair and balanced”.  Like a line out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth does nothing but spout propaganda, Fox News tries to take the high ground with their motto, then tells their tales of a biased world.

Fair

Fair means to tell both sides of the story.  That’s the original “two sides” to every issue.  There are “Gen X and Z” directed news shows, that make a big deal about letting their viewers make up their own minds.  They present the two sides, and then leave conclusions to someone else.  And that sounds eminently reasonable.  But it presumes something that often isn’t true:  that the audience has the expertise to understand and analyze the “two sides”.  

That plays into the conceit of the Google (or Duck, Duck, Go wouldn’t want to be tracked) generation.  They can become “experts” in any field, with a few clicks on the mouse and fifteen minutes on YouTube.  And that “faux” expertise makes them vulnerable.  That’s a flaw, whether it’s in Cheddar News or Fox News itself.  

Balanced

 Then there’s the falsehood in the second part of the motto: balanced.   Fox always “balances” it’s new analysis with “liberal” voices.  Juan Williams was the original.  A well-known NPR commentator, Juan was ultimately fired from NPR for his association with Fox.  He was the “one” on the panel, maybe the “one” liberal, maybe the “one” black man, that created balance.  But Juan’s balance was often, maybe always, drowned out by the chorus of “right-wing” voices on the other side.

And before you start writing your rebuttal, I’m well aware that some of the NBC news shows do the same thing.  Meet the Press often has two liberals, two “neutral newscasters”, and one conservative on their panels.  And those conservatives serve the same purpose as Williams does on Fox, to be the counter-point to the more liberal views of the others.  Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review often plays that role.

So we can agree that both sides create a “faux balance” in some of their news shows.  

Preponderance of Evidence

But there is a more subversive form of balance, one that plays into the “internet expertise” so prevalent today.  For example, let’s talk about a subject most folks agree on:  climate change.  A fair newscast would present “both sides”, the scientists who carefully explain why human action is causing rapid climate change, and the scientist who says it’s all “just nature” and we’ve been here before.

But a balanced newscast would present the ninety-nine scientists who know that climate change is exacerbated by man, and then the one who disagrees.  That’s the real “balance” in the scientific community – the vast preponderance of climate scientists who can demonstrate humanity’s role in climate warming, versus the few “outliers”.  The outliers may be amplified by the massive industries, particularly oil, who finance their media campaigns.  But in the end, there are very few climate scientists who believe that climate change is natural without a major human component.  

Internet Expertise

Of course the debate doesn’t happen that way.  And since the climate scientist and the climate denier are “head-to-head”, they apparently start on an equal footing.   And that’s the problem.  Because when you look at the vast majority of science, they aren’t.  But since we can all be “climate experts” with a click and a view, we can pick and choose our “affirmative” data, or follow our trusted commentator’s opinion (even after he says that he doesn’t have “a side”).

While climate change may ultimately be the greater threat to humanity, and should be the center of scientific debate, that’s not what our current scientific crisis is about.  We all know the scientific “sides” we are taking.  It’s not about the atmosphere, it’s about the virus.

Set Up

We’ve been set up.  

We are told we can become experts ourselves, just by watching a YouTube video, or reading a synopsis of someone’s theory.  And as we invest our time and brain-width trying to understand virology (you could replace that with “rocket science”) the years of study  required gets condensed to a one hour podcast. And we believe.  I get it.

I’m a pole vault coach.  I’ve spent over forty years teaching and learning about the event.  I’ve “apprenticed” with some of the best coaches in the nation.   And I’ve had thousands of vaulters to teach, coach, and learn from.  The technique of pole vault I teach is proven to be effective, and not just by me (want to check that out – Ohio Pole Vault Safety).

But you can click on the internet, and find so-called experts teaching pole vault like they know what they’re doing.  And what they’re doing could ultimately get someone killed.  It’s dangerous, and even more so because they say:  “Just follow our internet instructions and you’ll be great!!”  You won’t be, you’re more likely to be broke (financially and physically).

I won’t in any way advance their cause, so I won’t publish the website.  But if it can happen in something as esoteric as pole vaulting, what about something as politically volatile as the Covid vaccine.

In my way, I’m trying to make pole vaulting safer.  The real “experts” in the field are with me.  And none of us learned how to coach from a website or YouTube video.  Maybe we should all be listening to the vast majority of experts about vaccines (and climate change) as well.