To be optimistic, I will say that I am fairly sure most viewers of Fox “News” realize that the information the channel provides is nothing like their slogan, ‘fair & balanced.’
Loyal viewers of Fox’s programs may immediately point to MSNBC and say that they are no better, no fairer and no more balanced, but to this comes a simple answer. MSNBC’s slogan is not ‘fair and balanced’.
Is it wrong for cable news companies to be so biased, towards either side of the political spectrum? Difficult to say, but this isn’t my point. I think fair and balanced is overrated.
Sometimes, fair and balanced just doesn’t make sense. Sometimes, you just shouldn’t try to hear out both sides.
Opinions can be wrong. I firmly believe this. Facts are either correct or incorrect, but opinions can be this way too. It depends on the subject.
Let’s take opinions on climate change, for instance. Roughly half of this country doesn’t “believe” in global warming. I’m sorry, America, but some of you have wrong opinions. Regardless of what coal and oil companies want you to believe, climate change is happening, and your petty opinion won’t change that.
When Fox “News” debates climate change it is anything but fair and balanced. If almost 90 percent of climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and believe that it’s because of man, then shouldn’t the panel debating on TV have nine individuals on the side of “yes, it’s happening,” and one on the side of “no?” Any reasonable person can follow this logic, but this is not how I’ve seen these so called “debates,” on any news channel, for that matter. This is an example of when ‘fair and balanced’ doesn’t work.
Another great example of wrong opinions comes from a recent Harris poll where two-thirds of self-identifying Republicans believe President Obama is a socialist and 57 percent believe him to be a Muslim. By definition, he is neither one of these things. You think he’s socialist? Try living in China or Soviet Russia.
Perhaps the most unsettling statistic is that 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama to be the “Anti-Christ.” I’m not sure how to argue with that, but somehow it just doesn’t seem right.
Fair and balanced in these cases just doesn’t make sense. Instead, we should see one individual on TV explaining the situation, not debating it with someone else. If a channel wants to claim they balance the news, then that is how it should be done. Opinions can be wrong; there is no reason to give equal time to unequal sides.
On a lighter note, it is important to show that wrong opinions can happen outside of politics as well, of course. Let’s examine them in popular culture. If you say, for instance, Nickelback is better than the Beatles, it’s obvious that you’re simply wrong. No facts needed to back it up. But if you say Nickelback is better than the Fray, then we have a valid argument. The first match-up doesn’t need, nor deserve, a fair and balanced debate, but the second could perhaps use one (if anyone cared).
Not only am I a firm believer in the possibility of wrong opinions, but I also believe that majorities, no matter how great, can be completely wrong. (Hopefully, one can understand the difference in a consensus among the scientists mentioned above, and a consensus among the general public.) Just because lots of people believe the wrong thing, it doesn’t make it right. Religion is a good example, but probably out of the scope of this article.
Wrong opinions abound. Uninformed, or misinformed, individuals walk our streets every day. It’s a dangerous world out there. Try to realize what should be debated, as if ‘fair and balanced’ is always something to strive for, no matter the circumstances.
There’s room for debate on a lot of issues, but not all of them. To the news media: please recognize which subjects warrant a debate and which do not. To my dear readers: please understand that ‘fair and balanced’ is not always all it’s cracked up to be.
Tim Cheplick is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Ed • Apr 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“If almost 90 percent of climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and believe that it’s because of man, then shouldn’t the panel debating on TV have nine individuals on the side of “yes, it’s happening,” and one on the side of “no?””
If 90% of the psychologists agree that “homosexuality” is a diagnosable mental illness and place it in the Standard Diagnostic Manual for Mental Illness (as they once did and it once was) should the gay rights movement be silenced? Should we go lock up all the gas & lesbians because some scientists agree that we should?!?!?!?
And Dow Chemical’s slogan once was “Better Living Through Chemistry” and we have painful reminders of things like DDT, asbestos, and lead/mercury based paints. Scientists said all of those things were good and sought to silence those like Rachael Carlson who pointed out that Mommy Eagle was crushing her eggs and that the Bald Eagle well could become extinct.
Which way do you want to have it – that we go with the scientists as gods whom we worship, or as human beings whom we make justify their claims? Or are you trying to say that even though the scientists were very wrong in the past, they now have become infallable and should not be questioned?
Milton once wrote that truth is stronger than falsehood, and that if you let all the voices out in a truly unfettered encounter, truth will prevail. Air America went bankrupt for a reason….
Michael Foley-Röhm • Apr 9, 2010 at 10:38 am
I believe that the Time Cube (www.timecube.com) makes sense, and I demand that it be taught in school. Since all ideas are equal, let’s waste all day with the silly theories of the educated stupid and then with the Time Cube Truth.
I also believe that aliens built the pyramids. We should “teach the controversy!”
Tim Cheplick • Apr 8, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
As for censoring, I didn’t even mention the word, nor imply that I support censorship. If it seemed that way I apologize.
My article is not about global warming, thus I will not discuss it at length here. Colorado may have been tropical thousands of years ago, because climate does change, regardless of humans. HOWEVER, never as rapid as it is now. That is the true issue. Regardless, 90% of climatologists believe today’s climate change is human-induced, so yes you will find an occasional climatologist on the other side. Roughly one out of ten, if you missed the math.
Last, I am not denying that MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc. is liberally biased, I am only saying that at least that their slogan isn’t ‘fair and balanced.’
Dan • Apr 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm
A: Global warming is a theory, and researchers find evidence for and against. There is no debate over whether climate change is happening, the debate is wether emissions are significantly contributing or if changes are simply part of earth’s pattern. The sun could be emitting more radiation and causing warming. Also, at one time, thousands of years ago, Colorado was tropical (Saw this on history channel). I suppose emissions caused by humans caused that one.
B: I’ve tracked Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, and even Huffington Post over the past nine months. CNN, MSNBC and HuffPo will NEVER post an article about a bad Obama tie or anything against democrats until its already been spready by word of mouth (Climate Gate, Van Jones, ACORN, Obama’s Former Church for a few examples). Fox news at least writes an article about some of the bad things in the Republican party the next day. The recent issue with Michael Steele, it was there on the same day other new sources posted it. As for political spin, yes Fox is more repub/conservative based. And CNN, MSNBC and most other news outlets are Democrat/Liberal based.
I’ll agree that whatever is published should be taken at face value, regardless of news source. Its still sad you use an opinion section as your anti conservative/republican rant zone. Hate Fox news all you want, but people watching fox are at least getting a bigger glimpse at what is going on. You should be questioning everything, not just blindly accepting that Hope/Change thing.
klem • Apr 8, 2010 at 8:41 am
“If it is my opinion that the sky is orange does that mean we must have a debate over it?”
Of course not, but if half of the counrty’s population beleives it is orange and we are going to alter the natioanl economy and the world order over it, yes we should have a debate about it. And fast.
Jenny • Apr 7, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Yes, they do have right to freedom of speech, but does that mean that we always have to hear their opinions? This article is not about censoring but rather not bothering to state the controversy simply because it exists. If it is my opinion that the sky is orange does that mean we must have a debate over it? No, I’m simply wrong. That’s it. Just because we have the freedom to say something does not make it right or worth being put out there.
John_W • Apr 7, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Oh yes, climate change. Perhaps an open mind would be beneficial:
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (climatologist)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
He’s not the only qualified skeptic to Catastrophic Anthropologic Global Warming. Try to understand he nor the many others are not denying the world is warming or that there is a human component to the cause.
Oh, I forgot keeping an open mind and actually trying to understand what someone is saying before dismissing them would be too “fair”.
John_W • Apr 7, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Yes, let’s CENSOR all the wrong opinions! I think I should be the one that decides which opinions are censored, and you probably think it should be you. Of course, you are wrong and should be censored. Or perhaps, the founders of the USA were right: censorship is wrong, whether its Jews, KKK, Black Panthers, Communists, Socialists, Nazis, or Homophobes; they have the right to freedom of speech, press, and yes even thought.