‘What about so-and-so?’
False balance in journalism is a hot topic
Whenever U.S. President Donald Trump is mentioned in this column, I get calls and messages from upset readers.
They say I am biased against him, which is true. In their response to my criticisms, they say “yeah, sure, but what about” so-an-so?
This is a fair point. All politicians make mistakes, tell untruths, are ill-informed and poorly equipped, and many don’t speak clearly. All make decisions for political purposes. Some are unethical, some are authoritarian, some are racist and sexist, some are mean and nasty and spiteful, and some try to enrich themselves as part of the job.
Most of them dislike the way they are treated by the media, and I suppose being egotistical is part of the job.
But let’s face it. Nobody is like Trump. None tell anywhere near as many lies. Few are as ill-informed, as poorly prepared or unable to even speak in cohesive sentences. Not many are so unethical, authoritarian, racist, crude, crass, sexist, mean, nasty, spiteful, boastful or self-absorbed.
And it has been a long time since a single politician was able to legitimize and unleash so much simmering — and terrifying — hatred across the land.
As a result, the “what-aboutso-and-so?” complaint doesn’t really apply here. It has been said many times that we are in uncharted political and journalistic territory. Indeed, many journalistic observers insist that to point out the shortcomings of others to balance Trump’s appalling behaviour amounts to false media equivalence, or false balance.
For example, noting that some scientists say climate change is a hoax is misleading if the vast majority of scientists say it’s a threat. Giving credibility where it is undeserved can skew accepted truths. Journalists can’t ignore it, of course, and no truths are inviolable, but we don’t have to provide “balance” either.
The discussion has heated up considerably in an age of Trump.
I may not have approved of comments recently by Robert De Niro or Samantha Bee, but they can’t even be compared with Roseanne Barr’s horrific statements, or many of the things other Trump supporters say.
It was obvious long ago that the media gave Trump too much ink, airtime and digital space on his absurd theories about Barack Obama’s place of birth. Journalists gave him too much attention during the election campaign, when they tried too hard to be fair to him, mostly because they didn’t want to be accused of unfairly helping elect his opponent.
And we give him too much attention still. This column, among others, is evidence of that.
The only good thing I can say about Trump is that a lot of people like him, maybe because he is refreshing and “tells it like it is” — or at least that’s how his supporters would like it to be.
Perhaps it’s because he promises to take us back to allegedly “better times” no matter how absurd that is. Or maybe because he says he’ll do things differently, make deals and get things done, no matter how much is just sizzle and no steak.
Or maybe it’s just because he says he’s rich and smart, and they believe him when he says everything will be easy, when most of us know it is not. It’s up to journalists to remind us all of reality.