3 ms·

If you have two sides at the table, then the 'correct' side should be able to articulate how their point is correct. Here is where I am coming from: NPR used

If you have two sides at the table, then the 'correct' side should be able to articulate how their point is correct. Here is where I am coming from: NPR used to have a great show (Diane Rehm) where she would get both sides of a hot topic and through great moderation allow both to speak and then to debate the issues. More times than I could count the first person would speak and I would think "Wow, this person has a rock solid argument" and then the second person would speak and tear it all down. I would sit there stunned thinking "I would have been so mis-informed if I had only heard the first person in a vacuum." When something is still an active topic, it's extremely important to have all the sides at the table.

yorwba 6y ago
There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table. Most issues are not simple binary decisions and there are many more sides than just two. Even if a binary decision is forced (e.g. yes-or-no vote on legislation), both supporters and detractors will be heterogeneous groups, with everyone having their own reasons for their stance. So if you get representatives from "both sides" to debate, they might both share the same incorrect view, just disagreeing on whether that's a good thing or a bad one. I don't think that's a problem journalism can easily solve.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table. > I don't think [more-than-two-sides]'s a problem journalism can easily solve. Very true, but having only one side at the table is even worse.