False equivalencies and false balance

Transcription

1 False equivalencies and false balance Objective To help students recognize when reporters or their sources draw comparisons that bear no relation to one another. These false equivalencies are dangerous and misleading. The lesson also explores how, in the interest of balance, news stories can create false impressions about weight and validity of alternative viewpoints. Background On Oct. 7, 2017, the New York Times published a story about the man who killed 58 people in Las Vegas who were attending a concert. This is the story s lead paragraph: Stephen Paddock was a contradiction: a gambler who took no chances. A man with houses everywhere who did not really live in any of them. Someone who liked the high life of casinos but drove a nondescript minivan and dressed casually, even sloppily, in flip-flops and sweat suits. He did not use Facebook or Twitter, but spent the past 25 years staring at screens of video poker machines. (Read full story) Paddock is only a contradiction because of the way this paragraph was written. If he took no chances, he was not a gambler. People who have houses everywhere, but never live in them can be considered real estate developers. Liking the high life of casinos has nothing to do with his vehicle or fashion choices. His use of social media has nothing to do with using video poker machines. Wait! I thought he wasn t a gambler!! This information is useless and misleading. It does not help us understand the man better and, in fact, creates a false impression. The rest of the story does a much better job of delving into the man s background and activities. The lede is a reporter trying to be pithy at the expense of accuracy. False equivalencies are the bumping together of two or more facts or ideas that have only passing association with one another and suggesting they are of equal importance. Here s an example: A letter to the editor writer comments to the Virginian Pilot in Norfolk, Va. Some people want to trash anything that has to do with Confederate history and heritage. But every street is named after Martin Luther King Jr. This is offensive to many white people. If there s a Martin Luther King Jr. monument in downtown Norfolk, why can t there be Confederate statues as well? The comparison of Martin Luther King Jr. to Robert E. Lee is specious in that the two men were engaged indifferent activities. By drawing the parallel, the writer suggests the ideas should have equal weight. (Read letter) False equivalence is often difficult to spot when published in a new story because we trust reporters and editors to screen such things out. Still, they creep into the news when public

2 officials, business leaders and others make statements containing them. Those instances are not screened out because it is the person s response to a question. Readers are then left to detect the flaw of logic and, perhaps, gain insight into the person s way of thinking. There s another false that needs discussion because it s rooted primarily in the press and that s false balance. False balance comes when reporters, in an effort to be fair, ask representatives of different viewpoints for their take on an issue. While that sounds noble, it often goes unnoticed that the minority view comes from just a handful of people. It can reasonably be argued that alternative viewpoints will never be heard if the press does not report them or characterizes them as unpopular. But by not reporting the weight of the opinions, readers unfamiliar with the topic can come away with the false impression that the two sides are balanced. Climate change provides a great example. More than 90 percent of scientists whose work involves climate issues say that climate change is real and is caused by humans. There is a minority which disagrees, but when the press presents both voices as equal, the public can easily misjudge what is fact and what is opinion. Both concepts may be valid opinions, but the facts weigh heavily to one side. As Wikipedia phrases it, Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists. National Public Radio has tried to address this in its ethics code: "In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth. At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly." The website theconversation.com gave another example: In a sense, the reporting of the EU referendum campaign was anything but balanced. A study by Loughborough academics found that when you took newspaper circulation into account there was a weight of 82 percent to 18 percent in favor of articles arguing the case for the Leave campaign. Given that the majority of experts believed that leaving the European Union would adversely affect the UK economy, had their perspectives been fairly reported against the few genuine experts who supported the arguments for Leave, few would realistically have expected the eventual result. Over reliance on balance can itself lead to unwanted bias. A study by Jeremy Burke concluded that the public suffers as a result of the fact that many media organizations, who are desperately

3 seeking neutrality in their reporting, directly or indirectly withhold important information. (Read story) Resources People confused about expert opinions

4 Exercise Below are several examples of false equivalencies The class will identify and discuss the faulty logic in each example. 1. Luke didn't want to eat his dinner, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all. 2. Jake argues that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then it opens the door for people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. 3. Sara said no true American would tolerate someone burning a flag. Kevin points out that the Constitution protects free speech and the Supreme Court has ruled that the protection applies to flag burning as well. Sara says Kevin is not patriotic. 4. Libby says because her grandfather was a heavy smoker and lived until age 97 that people should be leery of studies that say smoking leads to an early death. 5. Senator Larsen said we should ignore reports of his having used campaign funds for private use because the media is unreliable. 6. Jaxson said those who do not believe in gun rights are enemies of freedom. 7. A soft drink spokesperson said its product are sold in some of the most healthy nations on Earth and that is proof that the products pose no danger to health. 8. During the debate, Rep. Madison said more money should be spent on healthcare and education. Her opponent, Leslie Jordon, said she couldn t believe Madison would take money away from the military, making America less safe.

5 Teacher s notes 1. The comment suggest that if Luke been served the food, it would have gone to some third world country. That would not have happened. The statement contains false logic. 2. This is a slippery slope argument suggesting that if one step is taken, it will cause a cascade of other events. It also suggests that the first step is wrong in and of itself. In this case, it s a matter of opinion, not law. Marriage licenses are contracts entered into between two people. If a divorce is desired, a court must approve it. Since horses cars and other items can t consent to terms of any contract, such events can t occur. 3. Sara makes a statement of opinion, then restates as a fact, concluding that Kevin is not patriotic. She also chooses to ignore facts in favor of her opinion. 4. Libby s example of one incident is offered to disprove a large body of scientific research. It is based on the hope that listeners won t understand scientific research and how its results are measured. Research results are nearly always stated in statistics and there are nearly always outliers. For example, if the research says something happens 90 percent of the time, it s clear that things are different 10 percent of the time. 5. The senator changes the topic to one of media credibility. It appeals to emotion and not fact. The media certainly is not perfect, but reports done by ethical, professional journalists are correct most of the time. 6. Put simply: Those who disagree with us are our enemies. The argument is reduced to binary terms. 7. The argument dismisses many other factors. For example, it could compare the sales of the soft drink per thousand to the sales of the soft drink in less healthy countries per thousand. It could also offer up information on whether those buying the soft drink in more healthy countries are regular or occasional consumers of the product. The statement puts two facts together and suggests that one proves another. 8. Again, the argument creates a false comparison suggesting that Madison would take money from the military to benefit healthcare and education. Madison has not said that. There is also no information about whether the military needs more money. The argument places logic with fear.