EN BG

False Balance

One side has ten thousand studies. The other side has a guy with a blog. The news puts them in split screen and calls it "balance."

False balance is when media presents two positions as equally valid even though evidence overwhelmingly supports one. It looks like fairness. It's actually a distortion. By giving equal airtime to a fringe view and a scientific consensus, the audience walks away thinking the truth is "somewhere in the middle" — when it isn't.

This happens because journalists are trained to show "both sides." That instinct is right when covering genuine debate. It's dangerous when applied to settled questions. Presenting a climate scientist alongside a paid denier doesn't inform you. It confuses you. And confusion benefits whoever has the weaker case, because all they need is doubt.

Industries have exploited this for decades. Tobacco companies didn't need to prove cigarettes were safe. They just needed to manufacture enough "controversy" that the press felt obligated to present "the other side." The playbook hasn't changed — only the topics.

When you see a debate framed as two equal sides, ask a simple question: what does the weight of evidence actually say? If it's 97 to 3, the "balanced" presentation is the most unbalanced thing in the room.

References