Tip number 6: Avoid false balance
01 januar 2023
Key points
False balance means that a scientist or a study that stands alone with its claim is weighted just as highly as knowledge built up over decades.
If two scientists disagree, you should not equate them uncritically. Clarify if one party is backed by the majority of science.
During your training as a journalist, you have probably learnt the excellent principle that all parties of a case or a situation must be heard.
When the left-wing gets speaking time, the right-wing should have it, too. It is a matter of balance and impartiality.
It is a good principle that helps to ensure objective coverage of everything from political disagreements in parliament to neighbourhood disputes in a rural municipality.
But the principle of balance is not always equally relevant to science reporting.
For example, several news outlets’ coverage of climate research gave equal time to scientists talking about man-made climate change and climate sceptics.
That practice has been fiercely criticized in recent years for creating the erroneous impression that scientists are divided on the subject, despite the fact that the vast majority of research showed long ago that humans are responsible for global warming.
In other words, the media have been guilty of a false balance in climate coverage.
Download the guide
This article is part of the guide 11 tips for journalists: How to avoid blunders when reporting on science. The guide is accessible in three formats:
Online articles regarding each of the 11 tips.
The full guide of 11 tips as a PDF-file.
The 11 tips as a checklist, a one-pager.
Underline the scientific consensus
This example clearly shows that you risk distorting your story and misleading your readers, viewers and listeners if you uncritically report the views and quotes of two dissenting scientists.
Sometimes, there is widespread disagreement in research and no clear scientific consensus. Here, of course, two sides of an issue must weigh equally.
But when you, as a journalist, talk about conflicting views in research, you should examine whether one view has significantly greater scientific support than the other.
It should be quite clear in your coverage if one scientist speaks based on scientific consensus, while the other has conducted a single controversial study that reaches a different conclusion.
Avoiding false balance is not about muzzling the minority. A new study that goes against the scientific consensus may be important and perhaps the first step towards changing the scientific consensus.
Suggested questions
If you, as a journalist, think critically and clearly state what scientists base their arguments on, their disagreement can make readers wiser. Ask the scientists:
- How do you know that?
- Are there other studies that point to the same thing?
- Is there a scientific consensus on what you are saying or what your study is showing?
That way, you can both assess the research critically and at the same time ensure that your angle actually corresponds with reality.
Read more tips by clicking the blinking icons at the left in the graphic below.
