To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Among climate scientists in 2013, 97% thought that climate change was happening and 3% did not. Among Fox News guests in late 2013, this was presented as a more even balance between the two viewpoints, with 31% of invited guests believing it was happening and 69% not.
Among climate scientists in 2013, 97% thought that climate change was happening and 3% did not. Among Fox News guests in late 2013, this was presented as a more even balance between the two viewpoints, with 31% of invited guests believing it was happening and 69% not.

False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.[1]

False balance is a bias which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability. It creates a public perception that some issues are scientifically contentious, though in reality they may not be, therefore creating doubt about the scientific state of research, and can be exploited by interest groups such as corporations like the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry, or ideologically motivated activists such as vaccination opponents or creationists.[2]

Examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of human-caused climate change versus natural climate variability, the health effects of tobacco, the alleged relation between thiomersal and autism,[3] alleged negative side effects of the HPV vaccine,[4] and evolution versus intelligent design.[5]

Description and origin

False balance emerges from the ideal of Journalistic objectivity, where factual news is presented in a way that allows the reader to make determinations about how to interpret the facts, and interpretations or arguments around those facts are left to the Opinion pages. Because many newsworthy events have two or more opposing camps making competing claims, news media is responsible for reporting all (credible or reasonable) opposing positions, along with verified facts that may support one or the other side of an issue. At one time, when false balance was prevalent, news media sometimes reported all positions as though they were equally credible, even though the facts clearly contradicted a position, or there was a substantial consensus on one side of an issue, and only a fringe or naescent theory supporting the other side.

Today, most media is willing to call out false information as incorrect, such as the idea that the Earth is not warming, or that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election; in contrast to prior decades media will now regularly call the idea that Trump won the election a "lie" or "the big lie." Similarly, claims that the Earth is not warming is regularly referred to in news (vs only editorials) as "denial," "misleading," or "debunked."[6] Prior to this shift, media would sometimes list all positions, without clarifying that one position is known or generally-agreed to be false.

Unlike most other media biases, false balance may stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information.[7] Media would then present two opposing viewpoints on an issue as equally credible, or to present a major issue on one side of a debate as having the same weight as a minor one on the other.[8] False balance can also originate from other motives such as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful than a more accurate (or widely-agreed) account of the issue.

Science journalist Dirk Steffens mocked the practice as comparable to inviting a flat earther to debate with an astrophysicist over the shape of the Earth, as if the truth could be found somewhere in the middle.[9] Liz Spayd of The New York Times wrote: "The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking."[8]

Examples

Climate change

Although the scientific community almost unanimously attributes a majority of the global warming since 1950 to the effects of the industrial revolution,[10][11][12] there are a very small number – a few dozen scientists out of tens of thousands – who dispute the conclusion.[13][14][15] Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change that anthropogenic global warming exists.[16]

MMR vaccine controversy

Observers have criticized the involvement of mass media in the controversy, what is known as "science by press conference",[17] alleging that the media provided Andrew Wakefield's study with more credibility than it deserved. A March 2007 paper in BMC Public Health by Shona Hilton, Mark Petticrew, and Kate Hunt postulated that media reports on Wakefield's study had "created the misleading impression that the evidence for the link with autism was as substantial as the evidence against".[18] Earlier papers in Communication in Medicine and the British Medical Journal concluded that media reports provided a misleading picture of the level of support for Wakefield's hypothesis.[19][20][21]

See also

References

  1. ^ Boykoff, Maxwell T; Boykoff, Jules M (2004). "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press". Global Environmental Change. 14 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.
  2. ^ Grimes, David Robert (2019). "A dangerous balancing act". EMBO Reports. 20 (8): e48706. doi:10.15252/embr.201948706. PMC 6680130. PMID 31286661..
  3. ^ Gross L (2009). "A broken trust: lessons from the vaccine—autism wars". PLoS Biol. 7 (5): 756–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114. PMC 2682483. PMID 19478850.
  4. ^ Thomas, Ryan J.; Tandoc, Edson C.; Hinnant, Amanda (February 2017). "False Balance in Public Health Reporting? Michele Bachmann, the HPV Vaccine, and "Mental Retardation"". Health Communication. 32 (2): 152–160. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1110006. ISSN 1532-7027. PMID 27192091.
  5. ^ Scott, Eugenie C. (2009). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (PDF) (Second ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313344275. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  6. ^ "A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research". The New York Times.
  7. ^ Krugman, Paul (January 30, 2006). "A False Balance". The New York Times.
  8. ^ a b Spayd, Liz (2016-09-10). "The Truth About 'False Balance'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-09-13.
  9. ^ Deutschland, RedaktionsNetzwerk. "Dirk Steffens zu Umgang mit Corona- und Klimaleugnern: "Falsch, Verblendeten das Wort zu erteilen"". www.rnd.de (in German). Retrieved 2022-09-13.
  10. ^ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council (2006). Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10225-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Unger, Nadine; Bond, Tami C.; Wang, James S.; Koch, Dorothy M.; Menon, Surabi; Shindell, Drew T.; Bauer, Susanne (2010-02-23). "Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 (8): 3382–7. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.3382U. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906548107. PMC 2816198. PMID 20133724.
  12. ^ Edenhofer, Ottmar; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; Sokona, Youba; et al., eds. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415416. ISBN 9781107058217. OCLC 892580682.
  13. ^ Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010-07-06). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
  14. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2004-12-03). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594.
  15. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (2009-01-20). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-08.
  16. ^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-14588-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ Moore Andrew (2006). "Bad science in the headlines: Who takes responsibility when science is distorted in the mass media?". EMBO Reports. 7 (12): 1193–1196. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400862. PMC 1794697. PMID 17139292.
  18. ^ Hilton S, Petticrew M, Hunt K (2007). "Parents' champions vs. vested interests: Who do parents believe about MMR? A qualitative study". BMC Public Health. 7: 42. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-42. PMC 1851707. PMID 17391507.
  19. ^ Speers T, Justin L (September 2004). "Journalists and jabs: media coverage of the MMR vaccine". Communication and Medicine. 1 (2): 171–181. doi:10.1515/come.2004.1.2.171. PMID 16808699. S2CID 29969819.
  20. ^ Jackson T (2003). "MMR: more scrutiny, please". The BMJ. 326 (7401): 1272. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1272. PMC 1126154.
  21. ^ Dobson Roger (May 2003). "Media misled the public over the MMR vaccine, study says". The BMJ. 326 (7399): 1107. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1107-a. PMC 1150987. PMID 12763972.

External links

This page was last edited on 27 November 2022, at 02:44
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.