The Dark Side of ‘Bothsidesism’

WatchDog Opinion: The Dark Side of ‘Bothsidesism’

By Joseph A. Davis

A good journalist tells both sides of the story, right? That belief has strongly influenced journalism for many decades and is still held by some of the best.

But is there always another side?

Bothsidesism — if we can call it that — may have a place in journalistic values. If we dare say journalism has values at all. If politician Smith calls politician Jones a crook, we want to get Jones’ side of the story or at least Jones’ response. It’s only fair.

But if we have the smoking-gun memo in which Jones asks a contractor for a bribe, we need to print that, too, right? That’s a journalist’s job.

 

The best journalism has values

In the heyday of American journalism (long since past, we fear), top reporters would subtly brag about how unopinionated they were. The WatchDog has heard more than one of them brag about how they never voted. That kind of one-upsmanship misses the point.

WatchDog thinks it is a mistake to say not voting makes a good journalist. It may be different for political reporters. Maybe the reporter’s political party should not intrude on most stories. But it might be more honest to be up front about one’s prejudices when they are relevant. A Pew Research survey from a few years ago shows that actual journalists are divided on the issue.

 

Journalism does have values.

It’s true, and it’s nothing to be

shy about. We value truth,

evidence, fairness and more.

 

Journalism does have values. It’s true, and it’s nothing to be shy about. We value truth, accuracy, evidence, fairness, attribution, context, timeliness, openness, accountability … and lots more. This is not something the WatchDog made up. Look at the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

There’s a further set of what we call news values — qualities that make a story news. They include things like importance, immediacy, novelty, celebrity, conflict, unusualness, excellence, impact, proximity, human interest … and more. These may vary according to publication or audience. “If it bleeds, it leads,” as they say in local TV.

So yes, the best journalism ultimately does have values. Look at the slogans of great newspapers. The Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is an example — valuing not only illumination, but also democracy.

As of today, sex crimes against minors are definitely something few TV anchors hesitate to condemn loudly. Accepting bribes for official acts is not only condemned by newspapers, but also illegal (mostly). Same with serial murder, stealing old ladies’ purses, betting by ballplayers and anything called a “fiasco.”

 

False balance remains a trap

A variant of bothsidesism is often called “false balance.” It used to be common but is growing out of fashion these days.

For environmental journalists, the big case in point is climate change science. There once was a time — 30 or 40 years ago — when some scientists actually were debating the extent to which human emissions of greenhouse gases would cause global warming. That debate is long since over. At least among scientists. Lobby groups for fossil fuels are still trying to convince us otherwise.

 

“Not wrong” is often the

highest standard journalists

can aspire to. Welcome to

the world of false balance.

 

Climate science is actually a pretty complicated subject. Even if environmental journalists get the basic concepts, many general assignment reporters and many editors are nonspecialists who don’t quite. In those white-knuckled final moments at the copy desk, the philosophy of “better safe than sorry” takes hold. When deadlines are brutal, “not wrong” is often the highest standard journalists can aspire to. Welcome to the world of false balance.

Back in 2015, the Associated Press Stylebook came out against the use of the term climate change “denier.” They didn’t even like the word “skeptic.” “Doubter” was OK. WatchDog usually bends the knee to the AP Stylebook. But not on climate denial. After a decade, journalists still use the term “climate denier” all the time.

The WatchDog sees the denier-denial doctrine as an episode of false balance. Sometimes it’s hard to know the truth, and bothsidesism may be the best we can do. But ideally, our job is to discover the discoverable truth and inform our audience of the same. That’s what the climate change issue comes down to.

 

Case in point: Formaldehyde

Another example for environmental journalists: the cancer-causing properties of formaldehyde.

For years, the industry denied that formaldehyde was carcinogenic. But science said otherwise. The National Toxicology Program, the National Academy of Sciences, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the American Cancer Society, all long ago listed formaldehyde as a human carcinogen.

But not the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA had been dithering for decades over whether to release a major report on the toxicity of formaldehyde. Then, in the last month of the Biden administration, the EPA put it out — with findings that pleased neither environmentalists nor the chemical industry. In this case, it was the EPA that tried to split the difference. Many U.S. media tried to “balance” the news. Not Sharon Lerner at ProPublica.

Arguably, you’re not a real journalist until some politician or industry big shot has called your boss’ boss complaining about bias. Sometimes it’s the one who didn’t return your call.

But if you get enough of these calls, you may eventually notice that the vast majority of them come from paid PR people or paid lobbyists. They are the ones who call the loudest for the journalistic principle of balance.

Joseph A. Davis is a freelance writer/editor in Washington, D.C. who has been writing about the environment since 1976. He writes SEJournal Online's TipSheet, Reporter's Toolbox and Issue Backgrounder, and curates SEJ's weekday news headlines service EJToday and @EJTodayNews. Davis also directs SEJ's Freedom of Information Project and writes the WatchDog opinion column.

---

* From the weekly news magazine SEJournal Online, Vol. 10, No. 34. Content from each new issue of SEJournal Online is available to the public via the SEJournal Online main page. Subscribe to the e-newsletter here. And see past issues of the SEJournal archived here.