Bias by Balance?

In class, we talked about the idea that American journalists, because of their ideological training in school and/or because of professional norms that are engrained in them throughout their careers, usually value and strive for objectivity. As we discussed, this can be problematic for many reasons – especially when the fear of appearing biased supersedes the duty to “do the right thing” like promoting peace and resolution versus conflict and violence.

An important aspect that I feel could add more to the conversation is the concept of “bias by balance.” By this I refer to the consequence of journalists’ intense desire to remain objective while still focusing on a major news value: conflict. As a result of these often conflicting tendencies, journalists often frame issues or conflicts in terms of a strong but balanced power struggle between two different groups. Not only do they emphasize the conflict between two groups, but they often frame the story to create the impression that both groups have equal influence and power. Instead of taking the risk that they might appear to favor one side or the other, journalists usually offer counter arguments, quotes from both sides, and testimonies by experts or elites from both sides.

However, there are many cases in which journalists create a “balanced view” between two perspectives or sides of a conflict when, in reality, the situation is not nearly as balanced as the media portray it to be. Take for instance the debate on global warming. Global warming is still under question among American politicians and some of the American public. However, many other countries and the vast majority of the international scientific community are in almost complete agreement that the issue does indeed exist, and furthermore, that global warming has been caused by human beings. Yet up until very recently, journalists in America still presented the issue by giving equal weight to both arguments that were for and against the issue. This gives a false impression to audiences that the issue is still under debate, and therefore, through “bias by balance” the media are being biased towards an unrealistic interpretation of a very important and relevant global issue.

How can this be applied to international communication and conflict journalism? I would say that two major and detrimental results from "bias by balance" emerge. First, if journalists insist on objectivity, not only do their stories perpetuate limited accounts of issues (as discussed in class), but their “balanced” and “fair” reporting could further perpetuate violence if audiences are lead to believe that conflicts are equally balanced as a butting heads of two equally powerful groups. This is just as dangerous and not reporting a conflict itself. Second, through their desire to only show two evenly weighted perspectives, it is extremely unrealistic when third-party and minority groups are left out altogether. The media will perpetuate the idea of dichotomous struggle when, as we have seen with some social media events, activists, minorities and “every day” people not only deserve a voice but, at times, can be real contributors to major conflicts and issues. By only focusing on a balanced conceptualization between two parties, many voices are silenced.

What do you guys think? Have you seen instances of this “bias by balance” in your travels and abroad? Can you think of any other examples, foreign or domestic, in which this phenomenon has occurred?