The Problem With 'Both-Sidesism': When Balance Becomes Bias

Imagine a news program hosting a debate about the weather. On one side, a meteorologist points to radar data and says it is raining outside. On the other side, a partisan commentator insists it is perfectly sunny.

The anchor thanks them both for their perspectives and concludes: "Well, viewers, you'll have to decide for yourselves."

This scenario perfectly illustrates a journalistic failing known as "false equivalence," or more colloquially, "both-sidesism." It occurs when news outlets present two opposing viewpoints as being equally valid, even when the underlying evidence heavily favors one side — or proves the other side entirely false.

The Origins of the 'Balance' Trap

For decades, "balance" was considered a core tenet of objective journalism. To ensure fairness and avoid accusations of bias, journalists sought out opposing voices on every issue. If a Democrat proposed a bill, the reporter was obligated to get a quote from a Republican criticizing it.

On matters of policy, morality, or subjective political preference, this balance is entirely appropriate. Whether taxes should be raised or lowered is a matter of ideology; the press should present strong arguments from both sides and let the electorate decide.

The problem arises when the principle of subjective balance is misapplied to verifiable facts.

In an effort to appear impartial, some news organizations began giving equal platform space to climate change deniers alongside climate scientists. They hosted debates between doctors and anti-vaccine activists. They treated coordinated disinformation campaigns regarding election outcomes as simply a "competing narrative."

How False Equivalence Harms the Public

When a news organization gives equal weight to a factual reality and a fabricated lie, it is not being objective. It is actively deceiving its audience.

False equivalence creates several specific harms:

1. It Elevates Fringe Claims: When a major network hosts a debate between an established scientific consensus and a fringe conspiracy theorist, the network isn't diminishing the scientist; it is elevating the conspiracy theorist. The mere act of putting them on the same physical stage signals to the audience that these views carry equal weight.

2. It Exhausts the Voter: The tactic of "flooding the zone" with contradictory claims relies on journalists treating every claim with equal reverence. When the press dutifully reports "Side A says X, Side B says Y" without verifying which statement is true, voters become exhausted. They throw up their hands, conclude that "everyone lies," and disengage from the democratic process.

3. It Punishes Honesty: If a politician knows that every lie they tell will be reported simply as a "partisan dispute," there is no penalty for lying. False equivalence removes the reputational risk of dishonesty, heavily incentivizing bad faith actors to make increasingly outrageous claims simply to dominate the news cycle.

The Shift Toward "Truth-Telling" Over "Balance"

The realization that "both-sidesism" is a vulnerability being actively exploited by propagandists has caused a seismic shift in editorial standards over the last decade.

Leading newsrooms are moving away from the "He Said / She Said" model of reporting. The new standard requires journalists to be arbiters of fact, not just stenographers of opinion.

In practice, this means:

The Truth Sandwich: When a prominent figure makes a false claim, editors now train reporters to use the "truth sandwich" method. State the verifiable truth first. Describe the false claim the figure made. Reiterate the truth and explain why the claim is false. Never put the lie in the headline.

Asymmetrical Coverage for Asymmetrical Facts: If one political party engages in an unprecedented breach of democratic norms, reporting that it did so is not "bias." An objective press must describe reality accurately, even if reality makes one side look bad. Balancing a severe transgression by one group with a minor faux pas by another group just to appear "fair" is bad journalism.

Refusing the Platform: News organizations are increasingly willing to simply not quote people who spread verifiable disinformation. Freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a private publisher's megaphone.

The Reader's Role

Audiences can spot false equivalence by paying attention to how journalists handle disputes.

A good journalist will tell you who is arguing what, but a great journalist will take the extra step to tell you which argument the evidence actually supports. If an article presents two contradictory statements of fact and ends without the reporter making any effort to verify either of them, you are not reading objective news. You are reading stenography.

Sources: Jay Rosen's "View from Nowhere" concept; Columbia Journalism Review analysis on false balance; First Draft guidelines on the "Truth Sandwich."