3 ms·
> They would have much more credibility if they were to have equal representation from both sides of the political spectrum, and also include equally represente
by brimble 5y ago
> They would have much more credibility if they were to have equal representation from both sides of the political spectrum, and also include equally represented opposing views in articles for controversial subjects.
"Both sides probably have some good points" or "the truth is likely somewhere in the middle" are guidelines that are wrong often enough that they're not very useful.
- BLKNSLVR 5y agoExactly, and demonstrated beautifully by John Oliver: https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg An aim at 'balance' is part of the problem because it's not an aim at facts or truth. Aiming at balance is the media twisting debate to produce maximum outrage, and therefore increase 'consumer engagement'. Aiming at balance is politicians providing themselves supposed reasons to maintain the status quo or move in counter-factual directions.
- Hakashiro 5y agoIndeed, when one side argues for dialogue, human rights, cooperation, peace and maybe a bit of socialism, and the other side argues for kicking immigrants, building an ethno-state where anything manufactured on foreign soil is heavily taxed, and the poor are left to starve to death, the middle ground really isn't the right answer. Middle grounds are rarely conducive to any intellectually honest discussion and this can clearly be seen in American politics: where the GOP has been sliding more and more into the right, the Democrats have followed, trying to capture the moderate Republicans that don't agree with the new "extreme" GOP. Middle grounds are a slippery slope.