Why the Traditional Media Can’t Admit False Equivalence Is a Problem

Public criticism over the media’s false equivalence and VFY journalism is slowly building. Important people are denouncing it and organizations are beginning to make a concerted effort to fight it. (Yesterday Wolf Blitzer even seemed to have a rare moment of clarity.) Despite all these positive signs, there’s still a nearly insurmountable force preventing change from happening. If journalists admit false equivalence is a problem, it effectively trivializes much of their hard work.

The idea that you can describe both sides of an issue and have a reader make their own judgment is admirable. But that’s not how public opinion is formed in our current world. Public opinion is formed by taking the quantity of media coverage and it’s derivatives – water cooler conversations, late-night talk show jokes, facebook posts – and using it as a heuristic for figuring out what’s important. The majority of people decide what to think by simply absorbing the din around them. This is why the media can publish disparaging articles about death panels for two weeks and not de-legitimize it. If it’s in the news then there must be something to it.

Many journalists can’t acknowledge this because it would essentially be admitting that much of what they do is meaningless. All those phrases injected with just the right nuance? All those great interview questions that produced a perfect response? They were a waste of time if all that mattered was that the headline marginally reinforced the national consensus. A journalist would have to overcome an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance to admit that the details of an article have little effect on public opinion. It would be renouncing the journalism religion they were raised on.

The cognitive dissonance problem is exacerbated by the fact that most journalists hang out with other well-informed people who make a concerted effort to educate themselves about what’s happening in the world. The idea that knowing exactly what’s going on is not the most important thing is foreign to them. As a result many in the journalism world go on thinking that by presenting each side’s argument in the most factual way they’ll make everybody better informed. The solution to public ignorance can only be better articles with better reporting.

This won’t last forever. But like views on gay marriage, it will take some amount of generational replacement for the norm the shift. Eventually we’ll eradicate false-equivalence, but it will take longer than people think.

3 Responses to Why the Traditional Media Can’t Admit False Equivalence Is a Problem

  1. Media can only formed the opinions of public in to the current world.False Equivalence Is a very big Problem.our tradition media must take it seriously.

  2. Pingback: False-Equivalence Leads to Inaccurate Views On the Connection Between Vaccines and Autism - Peer-reviewed by my neurons | Peer-reviewed by my neurons

  3. I call it the “two sides to the story” fallacy. I think it the same.

    Any non-trivial issue has more than one side all right, and more often than not there are several different sides, or even dozens!

    The beauty of casting an issue into the “two sides to the story” fallacy is that you erase, you get rid of, all the other sides of the story in one fell swoop. I strongly suspect that this is also one of the big reasons they won’t admit to the “false equivalence” fallacy – it is too useful; and too often to abandon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s