New York Times “public editor” or ombudsman Liz Spayd is probably not making many friends inside corporate headquarters (and Dan Rather doesn’t approve either) after her latest Sunday Review piece attacked a liberal assumption: “Here’s the Truth About ‘False Balance.’”
The text box reads: “For some critics, stories are deemed fair only if they serve their cause.” Paul Krugman, call your office. (Actually, his preferred term is “false equivalence,” which Spayd flags as well).
Spayd wrote:
To anyone who has avoided the debate over “false balance,” apologies for disturbing your bliss. But it’s necessary, because those who haven’t heard this phrase are missing out on one of the more consequential debates to engage the media in years.
False balance, sometimes called “false equivalency,” refers disparagingly to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked heavily on one side.
As we enter the final sprint of an extraordinary presidential campaign, the use of this term is accelerating, and it typically is used to attack news outlets accused of unfairly equating a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s.
....
The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton’s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers -- remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton’s email so that the public isn’t confused about what’s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It’s a slippery slope.
Spayd proved that the paper’s coverage of the Clinton Foundation was legitimate by reminding readers that “reporting by The Times and others has turned up so many potential conflicts that the foundation decided to stop accepting foreign government funding if Clinton becomes president.” While calling Trump “erratic and...inflammatory,” Spayd pointed out that Hillary also has low approval ratings: “Which means if ever there was a time to shine light in all directions, this is it.”
If Trump is unequivocally more flawed than his opponent, that should be plenty evident to the voting public come November. But it should be evident from the kinds of facts that bold and dogged reporting unearths, not from journalists being encouraged to impose their own values to tip the scale.
I can’t help wondering about the ideological motives of those crying false balance, given that they are using the argument mostly in support of liberal causes and candidates. CNN’s Brian Stelter focused his show, “Reliable Sources,” on this subject last weekend. He asked a guest, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine, to frame the idea of false balance. Weisberg used an analogy, saying journalists are accustomed to covering candidates who may be apples and oranges, but at least are still both fruits. In Trump, he said, we have not fruit but rancid meat. That sounds like a partisan’s explanation passed off as a factual judgment.
(Newsbusters took on that CNN segment.)
If you fear a Trump presidency, it’s tempting to want the media’s firepower heavily trained on one side. But a false-balance cudgel gripped mostly by liberals is not an effective way to convince undecided voters. Just more preaching to the choir.
Disgraced CBS journalist Dan Rather is now holding forth on Facebook, and criticized Spayd’s piece in a column-length post Sunday evening.
I have written before that, for working journalists, this is an election campaign unlike any one I have ever covered. And if we needed a reminder of that, today the New York Times Public Editor, Liz Spayd, addressed the issue of “false equivalency”, with a rather dismissive and defensive tone....
The question of “false equivalency” centers around the controversial notion of whether the press, presented with the myriad lies, distortions, and lack of transparency by the candidacy of Donald Trump, is bending over backwards to investigate Hillary Clinton so as not to appear biased. Ms. Spayd suggests that what critics of the Times coverage -- on issues like the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation -- really want is for journalists to subvert their professional standards of independence in order to protect the country from what Clinton allies think of as the threat of Trump.
I beg to differ politely and respectively – and never ruling out the possibility that I may be wrong....Instead of reporting enough on her time as senator or Secretary of State, or questioning the feasibility or wisdom of her policy proposals, they are going after the same lines of attack you hear on such outlets as Fox News. And it should be noted that Ms. Spayd’s predecessor as public editor, Margaret Sullivan, criticized the newspaper’s coverage of Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions.
Rather argued for applying a liberal hand on the journalistic scale of balance.
I also think that Ms. Spayd is missing something more systemic and dangerous at play....there is too much evidence that Donald Trump, by so many criteria, is not a normal candidate for president....that does mean acknowledging that in terms of lies, transparency, coherence, temperament, and so many other grave issues, these candidates are not equal.
