Bad Trend- False Equivalency

Joe Weinlick
Posted by in Communications & Media


False equivalency is the fallacy of treating two (or more) sides of an issue with equal weight when the facts would indicate that they're not, in fact, equal. It's a pernicious habit among journalists, pundits, and other communications professionals that's grown into one of the more disconcerting media trends of the modern age. It's an easy way to hide ignorance of an argument's merits, which is common when the subject is scientific or otherwise requires extensive background for intelligent commentary. It's also a convenient way to report on events without offending advertisers, politicians, or other entrenched interests who would, in an honest report, have to be painted as the source of a problem as opposed to just one side of a thorny issue. False equivalency is more than careless; it's a means by which powerful people get away with causing harm, and it's dangerous.

Health is probably one of the better-observed areas where false equivalency has cost lives. For decades, the giants of the tobacco industry—faced with evidence that their products were addictive, caused cancer, and were being marketed to children—adopted a fallacious false equivalency defense in the media and even in sworn testimony before Congress. Their argument was that the tests done on lab rats, in which tobacco tar was painted on the rats' ears, which then immediately started sprouting huge tumors, were "not conclusive" and were "flawed" and "needed more study." Industry memos from this time reveal that the PR strategy the tobacco giants were following revolved around creating doubt in the mind of the public by way of false equivalency in the papers and on television.

Another area where false equivalency does real harm is global warming. Today, there is a political controversy over how serious a problem human-caused climate change is going to be. This controversy is dutifully reported according to a boilerplated "one side says this, the other side says that" template, and no resolution comes any nearer. To put it bluntly: despite what some believe to be true, something approaching 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real, humans are causing it, and it's going to be bad. False equivalency on this issue obscures the facts, presents people who are not experts as being as entitled to influence policy as researchers, and slows down global action on a looming crisis.

False equivalency also rears its head in less apocalyptic contexts such as politics. Here, "both sides do it" actually has some merit, but this has become an overused cliché. Communications professionals who want to be taken seriously would do well to remember that both sides aren't always exactly equally responsible for the totally avoidable policy mishaps of the last several decades. Sometimes one party, or even a small group of individuals within a party, really are flat-out wrong about something, and it isn't reporters' jobs to act as a fig leaf for lies, malfeasance, and incompetence.

So, false equivalency is a problem. What's to be done about it? As with all media trends, this unfortunate media tic can be changed over time by the steady application of pressure. Communications professionals can apply some of that pressure from within during the day-to-day struggles with editors and producers to avoid the false appearance of balance. As a consumer of news and advertising, an ordinary person can sometimes work wonders with a simple letter to the editor or other public forum. Speak clearly, identify participants with an interest in clouding an issue, and don't let timidity get the better of you when the facts are on your side. Sometimes the truth just is, and all the false equivalency in the world won't change that.

 

 

(Photo courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net)

Comment

Become a member to take advantage of more features, like commenting and voting.

Jobs to Watch