Fair, balanced and...boring?

A recent article in Newsweek caught my eye. Probably because its title contains the words rape, kill and sleep around. As Chair of Mizzou's Broadcast Journalism sequence Kent Collins would say, it's "sexy." Not in the literal sense, but in the way it catches a reader's eye.

While the "sex" drew me in, the content hooked me, which I will discuss later. As I read, however, I questioned its fairness and balance in portraying both sides of the discussion.

We humans tend to be voyeurs. We love to watch a good fight from the sidelines. In that sense, it's a lot more exciting to watch the "correct" side pick to shreds the arguments of the "incorrect" side than to observe a civilized debate in which both parties have equal say.

But where lies the fulcrum on the balance beam?

Laws of nature dictate equality must come into play to make something happen: either the amount of force I put in directly corresponds to the amount of work that comes out OR a system is rigged to help lessen the force I have to exert to beget those same results.

Take this clever fellow here. He can either bend over, grasp the boulder and hoist with all his might (chiropractor at the ready) OR he can utilize a lever and fulcrum to decrease his workload while still lifting the boulder.

Stick with me; this DOES relate to journalism, I promise!

When two sides are equally matched - like a seesaw - the fulcrum is in the middle. Balancing is easy. In journalism, it's generally easy enough, for example, to balance Democrats and Republicans, because both sides are long-standing American establishments and have people who will speak on the party's behalf.

What if a journalist is covering a chapter of neo-Nazis and a group of self-proclaimed "peace lovers" who are at odds at a National Socialist Movement rally? Then, perhaps, the metaphor looks a little more like the boulder illustration above - it take a lot more work to make coverage "fair and balanced" since the public at large is already so heavily against the stigma and history of anything that smells of racial supremacy and hatred.

So...who judges what qualifies as "fair and balanced"? As so-called gatekeepers, journalists charge ourselves with presenting germane, intelligent and neutral coverage to equip viewers, listeners and readers with the tools to make their own informed decisions. We are not ushers, guiding people down one aisle or another. Instead, we are park rangers with a working knowledge of several paths, so that when people approach and ask for route information, we can tell them what they may find down each way.

Two examples further my question of where to draw the line and set the fulcrum.

My Experience

I recently reported a story for KOMU-8 TV, in which the city of Columbia and its citizens engaged in dialogue over the plans for an extension of a particular roadway. Members of the team researching the project presented four potential plans to the public, each projecting a slightly different way of extending the road.

The road extension would greatly relieve the traffic that currently greatly burdens one particular road in Columbia. Many on both sides agree it is necessary.

One woman with whom I spoke, however, had an incredibly compelling story. She told me three of the four plans run right through her property. She also said one of the members of the team exploring the expansion told her the fourth plan was the least likely to be picked, so chances are good some or all of her property may be upset once the city obtains funding and builds. This woman's house survived a lightning strike and resultant fire, decades upon decades of Missouri weather and - now - renovations as she turns it into the retirement home of her dreams. She wants to be a lily farmer.

Hers was a story I felt had to be told. But how could I tell it without making the city look like the big bad wolf coming to huff, puff and blow her house in?

I encourage you to watch it for yourself, but what I did was start with her story to humanize the larger issue. Then, I did a stand-up in front of the most congested intersection of the road that needs relief from traffic flow to demonstrate that there is a problem the city is looking to address. I used that to segue into the meeting the city held to discuss options.

I very consciously presented both sides of the issue, and tried to do so fairly.

Journalism Response

Don't Blame the Caveman

6/20/2009

By Newsweek Senior Editor Sharon Begley, with Jeneen Interlandi

Newsweek

In this article, Begley describes the conflict between the evolutionary psychology school of thought and the more modern behavioral ecology. The latter is a long-held-by-some belief that our actions today are motivated - directed - by genes that were necessary to reproduce and stay alive back in the caveman days.

Evolutionary psychology, for example, would argue that "rape genes" were beneficial to males, because they assured the fullest spreading of seed - both to willing and unwilling partners. They got passed down and, voila, that's why we still have rape today.

Behavioral ecology, on the other hand, argues that humans didn't evolve in a static environment and that what was beneficial in early days might be detrimental now, so we don't have to "take it with us" regarding behavioral traits.

Reading this article, however, I felt the writer saw evolutionary psychology as disproved and behavior ecology as the answer to it. Both fields have people still pursuing and believing in their methods, so I'm left wondering whether she should have given more credence to the older?

I'm not advocating either way - I'm simply pondering, as a journalist, how much benefit of the doubt we should give to a belief that some see as "on the way out," but that others still follow.

Perhaps "fair and balanced" doesn't always mean an even 50-50 split of coverage. Perhaps it just means giving both sides their say, whatever the capacity, taking into account public opinion. I think most people would not like the media to give 50 percent of coverage to express the view of a protesting hate group.