Why the middle ground works
Life is more complicated than some think — no story is black or white
“If you are not with us, you are against us.”
It’s an angry expression, so I’d be surprised if Jesus actually said such a thing, despite the assertion in the King James Bible (Matthew 12:30).
It is also illogical, because it insists there is no middle ground, but that hasn’t stopped the likes of Vladimir Lenin, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and others from repeating it.
That’s not surprising, because it seems to be an increasing sentiment in a polarized world, and the reason charges of bias are levelled so often at the so-called mainstream media.
That is not to say media organizations (and all of us, to be honest) don’t have biases; we do. But most responsible news agencies try to stay somewhere in the middle and make their news reports fair and balanced, which means neither side is ever happy — and, therefore, at our throats.
For better and worse, we get accused of being lefties simply because we are not right wing, and we are accused of being too conservative because we are often in the middle. Such is the nature of life among the good denizens of the internet age.
In a world dominated by social media, everyone is quickly learning what journalists have always known:
If you think Donald Trump is a halfwit, you are a lefty.
If you think the Trudeau Liberals screw up often, you are a right-winger.
If you think climate change is a threat, you’re a radical liberal.
If you think Hamilton’s LRT project is ill-advised, you are a backward-looking, stick-in-themud, car-loving conservative.
The fact is there are many lifelong Republicans and proud conservatives who believe Trump is a halfwit and a crook. A lot of people who voted for Trudeau believe he has done some dumb things. And there are many who support universal mass transit, bike lanes, higher taxes for cars and stronger traffic laws who think the LRT money could be better spent.
Journalists have been assailed from all corners for as long as we’ve been producing good journalism. We cannot win, and we accept it.
Here’s just one example: let’s say you own a company. Your company produces a widget. The widget is useful. It is of good quality and sells for a fair price. Many people’s lives have been improved by it. You have a Christmas dinner every year for staff and you sponsor a little league soccer team. It’s a good story.
A journalist profiles your company, dwells upon all of this, but also mentions your factory had a careless fire, a workplace accident, a sexual harassment incident, a greedy bookkeeper or a spendthrift chief executive.
Believe me, there are many readers who think the latter list is irrelevant, and by including it we are doing “a hatchet job.” For others, it’s all they care about; they already know the stuff about the widget and consider it a “puff piece” even with the ugly stuff. (Imagine the challenge for obituary writers.)