Charlottesville: Journalism, Balance & False Equivalence

Simon Erskine Locke, Founder & CEO of CommunicationsMatch

During the election cycle, the issue of false equivalence or false balance in the media – the idea that equal weight is given to issues that are not logically comparable – was the subject of intense debate. But interest waned, and attention shifted to FAKE NEWS.

The President’s comments about Charlottesville in which he blamed both far right and far left for violence should serve as a powerful reminder that we should not let this sleeping dog lie. In fact, none other than The Washington Post brought this issue to the fore this week in a provocative article, “This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism.”

At a time when many major media organizations are in full fourth estate mode, many may argue that we should be thanking reporters for their dogged pursuit of the truth, rather than revisiting false equivalence at a time when few are talking about it?

As George Santayana, the essayist, poet and novelist wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Or, in Winston Churchill’s version, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” In the second half of 2016, media commentators in The Nation, Huffington Post, The Guardian, VOX and others argued that the mainstream media, in its effort to be balanced, consistently created false equivalencies between the Donald Trump scandal of the day and, more often than not, Hilary Clinton’s handling of emails. While The New York Times’ Public Editor provided counterpoint in September 2016, there is evidence that false equivalence contributed to the negative image of the Democratic Presidential candidate.

There are many reasons that led voters to elect the current President that go far beyond media coverage. If confidence in journalism is to be strengthened, the profession must continue to take a long hard look at balance, because ultimately trust has been undermined by the very approach designed to build it.

While there are those who remain focused on this issue, more often than not the narrative of editors and journalists I have spoken with or heard is they are knights in shining armor calling the administration to account. They are the conveyors of the truth in a post-truth world.

I’m happy to give credit to The New Yok Times, The Washington Post and many others for their role post-election in bringing daylight to the shadows of Washington. But in the context of current self-congratulation and self-importance, the issue of false equivalency and the role it may have played in the election result is an inconvenient truth.

There are many reasons why it may be hard to tackle the issues around balance, a core tenet of mainstream journalism.

For one, many journalists and media organizations are feeling pretty good about themselves post-election. The problem here is there’s a big difference between covering an elected President and candidates for elected office without fear or favor during an election cycle.

Second, it’s hard for any profession to admit issues with the tenets that underpin it. There’s often a dissonance between a profession’s stated aims and reality, but rarely the objective self-analysis that leads to change, particularly when things are going well.

Third, it is easy to dismiss coverage around the election as an aberration. Arguing that the balance sought would, under any normal circumstances (read: other candidate), have been appropriate, abrogates the responsibility of journalists.

Lastly, it’s easy to focus on the stories that laid bare the choices and issues with both Presidential candidates. There is a valid argument to be made that journalists provided the American people all they needed to make informed decisions during this election cycle. This may be true, but it doesn’t acknowledge that false equivalence was an issue or the risk that it will once more skew public perceptions of future candidates – irrespective of party affiliation.

There has been exceptional journalism in 2016 and 2017. It’s good to celebrate journalism’s current successes, but it is also critical to recognize failings during the election cycle if there’s to be an effort to move beyond them.

Simply put. We need to learn from Charlottesville and history.

About the Author: CommunicationsMatch is a search platform that helps companies find and engage communications agencies and consultants by industry and communications expertise, location, size, and more. The site has 5,000 agencies and consultant profiles in areas including: crisis communications, public relations, internal communications, government affairs, investor relations, content marketing, social media, SEO, website development, photography and video. Listing & Search are Free. See more Insights articles and videos on our Insights Blog. Prior to founding CommunicationsMatch, Locke held senior corporate communications roles at Prudential Financial, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank and founded communications consultancies.