[THE SCALES OF TRUTH] — Beyond Objectivity: Why “Both Sides” Journalism Is Failing Democracy.

In the grand theater of public discourse, journalists have long been cast as the impartial referees, tasked with presenting “both sides” of a story. This commitment to objectivity, a cornerstone of 20th-century reporting, was born from a noble ideal: to empower the public with balanced information, free from the taint of bias. But what happens when one side of the story is rooted in fact and the other in falsehood? In an era supercharged with misinformation, this cherished practice of “both-sidesism” is showing its cracks. Instead of illuminating the truth, it often creates a confusing fog of false equivalence, giving fringe theories and deliberate lies the same weight as established fact, and in doing so, it may be failing democracy itself.

The origins of objectivity

The notion of journalistic objectivity is not as timeless as it may seem. Early American newspapers were fiercely partisan, acting as explicit mouthpieces for political parties and factions. The shift towards impartiality began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This change wasn’t just philosophical; it was also a business decision. Publishers realized that by shedding overt political bias, they could appeal to a broader readership and, consequently, more advertisers. This professionalization of the craft sought to replace opinion with facts, positioning the reporter as a neutral observer simply conveying information.

This ideal solidified into a set of practices, the most prominent being the mandate to present “both sides” of any contentious issue. The goal was to remove the reporter’s judgment from the story, allowing readers to make up their own minds. On paper, it’s a laudable principle that aims to ensure fairness and prevent the media from becoming a propaganda tool. For decades, this model served as the gold standard, shaping journalism schools and newsrooms. However, it was built for an information environment that no longer exists, and its core assumption—that all “sides” are arguing in good faith—has become a dangerous vulnerability.

When balance becomes distortion

The fatal flaw in a rigid “both sides” framework is that it can easily curdle into false balance. This occurs when a journalist gives equal legitimacy to two opposing claims when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one over the other. Instead of informing the audience, this practice fundamentally misleads them by creating the illusion of a legitimate debate where none exists. The scales of truth are not always evenly weighted, and pretending they are is a disservice to the public.

Consider these clear examples:

• Climate Change: For years, news reports would feature a climate scientist discussing human-caused global warming alongside a lone “skeptic.” This created the public perception of a 50/50 scientific debate, when in reality, more than 99% of climate scientists are in agreement. The “balance” was a distortion of the scientific truth.
• Public Health: Pitting the consensus of the global medical community on vaccine safety against the discredited claims of a handful of anti-vaccine activists lends credibility to dangerous misinformation. It treats expertise and baseless fear as equally valid perspectives.
• Political Facts: When a politician makes a verifiably false statement, reporting it as “Politician X says the sky is green, while critics say it is blue” is not objective. It’s a failure to do the basic work of journalism: telling the audience what is true.

By elevating falsehoods to the level of fact in the name of balance, journalism abdicates its responsibility. It doesn’t just report on the confusion; it actively manufactures it, eroding public trust in science, expertise, and democratic institutions themselves.

The weaponization of fairness

This journalistic instinct for balance hasn’t just become an accidental flaw; it’s a vulnerability that is now actively and strategically exploited. Disinformation agents, political operatives, and bad-faith actors understand the media’s procedural norms better than anyone. They know that if they introduce a radical or baseless claim, the journalistic commitment to “both sides” will often compel news outlets to give it airtime.

This tactic is a form of “working the refs.” By manufacturing a controversy and then crying “media bias!” if their viewpoint is ignored, these actors can pressure journalists into providing a platform. They don’t need to win the argument on its merits; they only need to inject their idea into the mainstream conversation. The very act of being featured alongside a legitimate viewpoint grants them an unearned veneer of credibility. The media, in its attempt to be fair, becomes an unwitting accomplice in the spread of propaganda.

This weaponization turns journalism’s greatest perceived strength—its impartiality—into its greatest weakness. The pursuit of balance becomes a vehicle for laundering lies into the public sphere, polluting the information ecosystem and making it nearly impossible for citizens to distinguish between what’s real and what’s manufactured. This severely hampers the public’s ability to make informed decisions, a prerequisite for a functioning democracy.

Moving towards a journalism of clarity

The solution to the failure of “both sides” is not to embrace partisan or activist journalism. The answer isn’t for journalists to start telling people what to think. Rather, it is to recommit to a journalism that prioritizes telling people what is true. The shift must be away from a passive objectivity of just repeating what was said, towards an active journalism of clarity and verification.

This means adopting a new framework, one that is “pro-truth, pro-democracy, and pro-evidence.” This framework includes several key practices:

• Context over conflict: Instead of framing every story as a two-sided battle, focus on explaining the underlying issues. The central question shouldn’t be “who is winning the debate?” but “what is actually happening?”
• Proportionality in sourcing: A viewpoint shared by 99% of experts should receive 99% of the attention. A fringe theory should be presented as exactly that: fringe. Balance does not mean giving equal time to the consensus and the conspiracy.
• “Truth-sandwiching”: When reporting on a falsehood is necessary, it must be framed correctly. Start by stating the truth, introduce the falsehood, and then immediately fact-check it and re-state the truth. This prevents the lie from being the main takeaway.

This approach requires more courage, expertise, and transparency from journalists. It means being confident enough to call a lie a lie, and to guide the audience toward the most accurate version of reality supported by evidence. It is a more demanding form of journalism, but it is the only kind that can withstand the pressures of our modern information age.

In conclusion, the well-intentioned journalistic standard of “both sides” is no longer fit for purpose. It was designed for a different era and has buckled under the weight of coordinated misinformation campaigns. By creating false balance, it distorts reality, confuses the public, and provides a backdoor for propaganda to enter the mainstream. This isn’t a call for biased reporting, but for a more robust and responsible form of journalism. The media’s duty is not to mindlessly balance opposing quotes on a scale, but to weigh the evidence. True objectivity lies not in neutrality between truth and lies, but in a relentless commitment to clarity, context, and verification, thereby serving its ultimate purpose: to arm citizens with the truth.

Image by: KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
https://www.pexels.com/@ekaterina-bolovtsova