Fairness and balance are two objectives that many want from
their media. Not only does one get both sides of the story, but equal amounts
of both sides. But is it really fair to be balanced? In science, the research
gives one explanation, not ‘ifs.’ Earlier, I noted that science is not always
right, so shouldn’t that point to describing both sides of the story? What is a
science writer to do?
As Ricky Williams said, “To talk about balance, it’s easier
to talk about what’s out of balance. And I think anytime that you have any
disease, and disease meaning lack of ease, lack of flow… dis-ease. So any time
there’s disease, you’re out of balance, whether it’s jealousy, anger, greed,
anxiety, fear.” Some media outlets have goals as to what to show their audience.
Certain news shows may be conservative while others are liberal. Depending on
the source, other ‘baggage’ may affect what a news source may present to their audience.
As Williams said, there are so many aspects to take, in this case, the news out
of balance. But what is really fair?
From the words of Michael Pollan, “Fairness forces you –
even when you’re writing a piece of highly critical of, say, genetically
modified food, as I have done – to make sure you represent the other side as
extensively and as accurately as you possibly can.” So, a journalist wants to
represent both sides, but should a science writer?
I do not know.
I am in my first six months of being a science writer and certainly
do not have many answers. According to a recent study, Fox News viewers know
less about particular issues than those who do not watch the news. The motto of
Fox News is ‘fair and balanced.’ Is this statement misleading the audience or does
Fox News have an agenda to convey the news?
When I write science articles, I offer both sides of the
story that come from science. I only report scientific reports, not
advocate claims. I trust that my balance continues to be fair to science and that
my readers are never misled.
No comments:
Post a Comment