The media, eager to avoid the perception of bias, often present issues with a false sense of balance. Reporting \both sides"" of an issue when the facts support only one side is wrong because it misinforms the public. It creates bias by trying to avoid the appearance of bias.
Coverage of global warming is often presented with this false even-handedness. There is no lack of consensus in the scientific community: Human activity is causing the Earth to get hotter. It is a simple fact that is denied by only a tiny minority who are funded by greenhouse gas-producing industries. It would be ludicrous to suggest that both sides of this debate deserve equal time, because they do not have an equal claim on truth. Presenting the views of bought-and-sold professional skeptics as equal with scientific reality misleads the public into believing that the jury is still out on this issue. In fact, we have scientific certainty. News media should not allow a minority with a financial interest in muddying the waters to deceive the public.
Similarly, news organizations try to appear impartial in the presidential race, even when the facts favor one side. In particular, President Bush has often misrepresented John Kerry's positions. News organizations reporting on this, however, often present it as though both sides were equally unreliable. For example, the Associated Press released a report on September 25 titled ""In New Attacks on Kerry, Bush Twists His Rival's Words."" This reflected both the thrust of the story and the truth of the matter. Then the AP modified the headline to ""Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other's Words."" In the face of several false Bush campaign claims, the only example of Kerry's alleged ""twisting"" the AP could muster was Kerry's saying that Bush has no plan for getting out of Iraq, rather than saying that Bush has a plan, just not one that's working.
In a similar example of false balance, the Washington Post ran a ""debate primer"" comparing allegedly misleading claims by both campaigns. The Post correctly pointed out several of Bush's false claims. In contrast to Bush's assertion that Kerry wants to ""nationalize"" healthcare, the Post correctly reported that ""Kerry would build on the existing health system."" It also exposed Bush's false claim that he had ""strengthened"" Medicare, noting that Medicare's independent trustees had reported that Bush's Medicare law ""severely weakened the program's fiscal stability,"" with estimated costs rising $176 billion and ""independent investigators excoriat[ing] administration officials for concealing the true costs.""
By contrast, the best example of Kerry's alleged mendacity the Post could find was his charge that ""The administration misled America, the United Nations and the world. This administration rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."" The Post noted that much of the prewar intelligence was wrong and that the administration ""ignored or belittled"" nuances or caveats in the intelligence, but concluded that ""there is little evidence the Bush administration purposely tried to deceive Americans and other world leaders about the threat posed"" by the missing weapons of mass destruction. But Kerry did not claim that the administration ""purposely tried to deceive"" anyone, merely that it presented incorrect evidence and suppressed dissenting evidence, resulting in an incorrect public belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-in a word, misled us. Kerry specifically avoided calling Bush purposefully incorrect-that is, a liar.
Further, while the claim of misleading is controversial, it was Secretary of State Colin Powell who prominently cited Iraqi defector Hussein Kamal's figures on chemical weapons produced by Iraq on his address to the United Nations Feb. 5, 2003. Newsweek later reported that Kamal had told U.S. and international authorities that these stockpiles had all been destroyed. Powell failed to mention this fact, which completely contradicted his thesis. Similar examples abound.
In its attempt to suggest that both candidates might be peddling untruths, the Post provides an excuse for actual lies on the ground that ""they all do it."" This does a disservice to voters. Both sides of an issue are not always on equal footing. One scientific theory may be factually correct, supported by the consensus of more than 90 percent of scientists. One political campaign may be far more deceptive than another. If journalists attempt to find equal merit or blame on both sides, they obscure the truth and sacrifice actual freedom from bias in favor of freedom from the mere appearance of such bias.
Josh Gildea is a third-year law student. He can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. His column runs every Wednesday in The Daily Cardinal.
