Difference between revisions of ""Balance" Deception"
(Created page with '====(1) Description of the pattern==== This pattern refers to a common journalistic practice in the United States whereby one side will be presented and then, and with equal tim…') |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 20:08, 3 May 2013
Contents
(1) Description of the pattern
This pattern refers to a common journalistic practice in the United States whereby one side will be presented and then, and with equal time allotment, the "other side" will be presented. Thus a study on climate change will be endorsed by thousands and thousands of climate change scientists worldwide and then another person, perhaps an academic in a non-related field, will point out that there is no climate change.
(2) Why the pattern is good (i.e. bad)
This is a useful pattern for confusing the public by suggesting that if there are two sides to an issue, then they both have equal weight. Note that this pattern is definitely not to be exercised in all cases.
This pattern is also good because it can be justified by saying that "presenting 'both' sides" is a sound journalistic principle.
(3) How it works
Links (to other anti-patterns)
Notes and Suggestions
Former MIT Computer Science professor Joseph Weizenbaum suggested "the social utility of rape" and "the upside of genocide" as ways to tell the "other side" of the story.
