Both sides-ism in the media?

[AgnosticBoy]

I've been listening to a lot of different coverage on the Israel and Palestine conflict. I think a lot of news media are trying to listen to both sides by sharing the Palestinian perspective instead of just the Israeli side. I applaud that. The only issue I have with how the media has been engaging in that recently is that some of them seem stuck at that stage. When I listen to the coverage I have a hard time identifying who they think is in the right or wrong when they seem to point out that both are right or wrong. COuld it be that they don't want to appear to be taking one side or the other?

Factoring in both sides definitely has its benefits. I have written about this in other threads. When I factor in both sides, I do so to reach a conclusion that will be well-rounded, not leaving any relevant data or strong points out from one side or the other. But I'm also willing to accept a conclusion even if it ends up being that only one side is right.

Here's a good explanation I found online while researching my point here:

False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.[2][3][4]

False balance is a bias which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability.

Source: False Balance

Here's an example of a reporting that to me it focused on giving you both sides as opposed to drawing any real conclusions...

* I posted this topic in the Agnostic section because listening to both sides goes with the non-partisan (and even open-minded) aspect of agnosticism.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ooh, and here's more on 'both sideism'

Bothsidesing refers to the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited. The term is also used to describe public figures equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides are equally responsible for that action.

Bothsidesing and its related noun bothsidesism turn up in critiques of the news media when a journalist or pundit seems to give extra credence to a cause, action, or idea that on the surface seems objectionable, thereby establishing a sort of moral equivalence that allows said cause, action, or idea to be weighed seriously.

By giving credence to the other side, the media gives an impression of being fair to its subject, but in doing so often provides credibility to an idea that most might view as unmerited.

It’s not just the media that gets accused of bothsidesing. The term also arises whenever a public official—or anyone with a large listening audience—equivocates about a seemingly condemnable action by saying that the people on either side of that action are equally responsible for it having taken place. Bothsidesing happens prominently during times of mass protest—as protests are met with counterprotests and violent clashes erupt, turning to bothsidesism prevents one from explicitly identifying which is in the wrong, thereby avoiding any incisive comment on the discord that led to the protests in the first place.

Source: Merriam-Webster

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Deleted my last post because I found an even better description. I'll quote from a CNN transcript of the show called Reliable Sources, that aired on Oct. 24, 2021. The host interviewed reporter Jackie Colmes, who writes for the LA Times.

Jackie Colmes gives an example of how both sidesism tends to play out:

And, and it was, you know, when both sides ism is sort of like, you know, to be simplistic about it, as you say, well, you reported something that's somewhat critical of Republicans, then you sort of have to say, something along the lines of, but both sides do it, Democrats are as guilty as well.

Jackie Colmes brings up criticism that she received from her LA Times article on both sidesism:

And I have to say that some of the -- you know, the response I got that was critical to that column suggested that I was saying we shouldn't be objective anymore, we shouldn't be fair and balanced.

More points on both sidesism:

Of course, we should but I just think an objective and fact-based treatment of the news often means you can't report something that Republicans are doing without -- and suggest that this is indicative of a broader, more general problem in our politics without being clearer somehow, that it is no this is peculiar to Republicans. This is the nature of the Republican Party.

To watch a video version of the interview.. go here:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/10/24/the-both-sides-problem-with-american-news-coverage.cnn

My thoughts...
I think the main point Jackie is making is that reporters feel that they always have to bring up the other side or both versions of a story. Of course it is good to factor in all major sides before drawing a conclusion, but that can become a problem when the conclusion reached is also a two-sided one. There can be times when something does apply to both sides equally, but how often does that happen in politics or warfare? If someone is closed off to any one-sided conclusions, even when evidence supports it, or put another way, they are only looking for two-sided conclusions, then that is a flawed perspective. It's like a flawed version of fair-and-balanced (one article in post #1 calls it a 'false balance').