Read the original article here.

---

Understanding False Balance: A Tool of Digital Manipulation

In the digital age, where information flows rapidly and algorithms shape what we see, understanding the techniques used to manipulate perception is crucial. One such technique, often subtle but powerful, is false balance. This educational resource explores false balance, its origins, its impact, and critically, how it is employed within the context of digital manipulation, often leveraging data to control narratives and influence public opinion.

What is False Balance?

At its core, false balance is a form of media bias that distorts the public's understanding of an issue by presenting opposing viewpoints as equally credible or equally weighted, even when the evidence overwhelmingly favors one side.

False Balance (or Bothsidesism): A media bias where journalists or content creators present an issue as being more evenly divided or balanced between opposing viewpoints than the actual evidence, scientific consensus, or factual basis supports. This often involves giving disproportionate time or weight to a minority or fringe position compared to a widely accepted or evidence-backed position.

Unlike reporting genuine debate where credible experts or significant segments of the population hold differing, well-supported views, false balance elevates positions lacking substantial evidence to the same level as those strongly supported by facts, research, or consensus. This practice is sometimes colloquially referred to as "bothsidesism."

How False Balance Works

False balance operates by distorting the reality of a situation. It achieves this primarily through two mechanisms:

1. Disproportionate Presentation: Allocating equal or near-equal time, space, or emphasis to opposing viewpoints, regardless of their respective evidential support. For instance, presenting a fringe theory for half the segment and the scientific consensus for the other half.
2. Omission of Context: Failing to provide crucial information that clarifies the weight of evidence, the level of consensus, or the factual basis (or lack thereof) for each side. This might include not stating that one position is overwhelmingly supported by data while the other is based on debunked claims or minimal evidence.

By employing these tactics, false balance gives an illusion of legitimacy to unsubstantiated or fringe positions, making them appear more respectable or scientifically contentious than they truly are.

Origins and Motivations Behind False Balance

Historically, false balance often stemmed from a misinterpretation of the journalistic ideal of objectivity. The goal of presenting factual news separate from opinion led some journalists and editors to believe that reporting objectively meant giving equal airtime or space to all sides of an issue, regardless of their factual merit. This approach mistakenly equated fairness in representation with equality in prominence, even when one side was demonstrably false or held by a tiny minority.

Journalistic Objectivity: The principle in journalism that information should be presented in a neutral and unbiased manner, ideally separating factual reporting from subjective opinions or interpretations. While a core ideal, misapplying it can lead to biases like false balance.

However, false balance can also arise from other motives, particularly in the digital age where attention is a commodity:

• Sensationalism: Presenting an issue as a heated, contentious debate can be more dramatic and commercially appealing than reporting on a settled scientific consensus or a clear factual disparity. Controversy drives clicks, shares, and engagement.
• Ideological or Political Agendas: Individuals, groups, or state actors may deliberately promote false balance to sow doubt, confuse the public, or hinder action on issues that are inconvenient to their interests (e.g., climate change policy, public health measures).
• Exploitation by Interest Groups: Corporations (like fossil fuel or tobacco industries), political entities, or activist groups (anti-vaccine proponents, creationists) actively exploit false balance. They fund dissenting voices, create think tanks that publish contrary views, and lobby media to present their position as part of a "debate," even when it contradicts overwhelming evidence.

Consequences and Impacts

The effects of false balance are significant and detrimental, especially in an information-rich but often confusing digital environment:

• Misinformation and Confusion: It directly contributes to the spread of misinformation by elevating baseless claims to the level of credible arguments. The public is left confused about what is true or what the established understanding of an issue is.
• Erosion of Trust: False balance can erode public trust in science, expert consensus, and legitimate news sources. If media outlets present fringe views as equally valid as established facts, the public may struggle to discern reliable information from unreliable sources.
• Hindering Progress: By creating the perception of significant disagreement on settled issues (like climate change or vaccine safety), false balance can paralyze public discourse and impede necessary policy changes or public health initiatives.
• Legitimizing Fringe Views: It grants an unearned illusion of respectability to positions that may be harmful, scientifically unfounded, or held by a tiny minority, allowing them to gain traction in the public sphere.

False Balance as a Tool of Digital Manipulation

In the context of "Digital Manipulation: How They Use Data to Control You," false balance takes on a particularly insidious role. Digital platforms and the vast amounts of data they collect can be used to amplify, target, and profit from false balance:

1. Algorithmic Amplification: Social media algorithms, often optimized for engagement (clicks, shares, comments), may inadvertently or deliberately promote content that presents controversial or two-sided narratives, even if one side is false. Sensational, misleading "debates" often generate more interaction than straightforward reporting of consensus. Data showing high engagement with controversial topics can lead algorithms to serve similar content to more users, spreading false balance rapidly.
2. Targeted Disinformation: Data allows manipulators to identify specific demographics or individuals who might be more susceptible to false balance narratives (e.g., those already distrustful of institutions, those with specific political leanings, or those searching for alternative viewpoints). False balance content can then be strategically targeted to these groups, reinforcing their biases and deepening confusion.
3. Data Cherry-Picking and Misrepresentation: Propagandists can use selective data points (often taken out of context or from questionable sources) to lend a veneer of credibility to fringe positions. By presenting these isolated data bits alongside established, robust datasets without proper context or scale, they create a false sense of equivalence. The sheer volume of data available online makes it easier to find some data point, however irrelevant or flawed, to support almost any claim, which can then be presented as part of a "balanced" view.
4. Creating Filter Bubbles: Digital manipulation can create filter bubbles where individuals are primarily exposed to content reinforcing existing beliefs, including false balance narratives. If someone interacts with content questioning, say, climate change, algorithms may show them more content presenting the topic as a heavily debated issue, featuring denialist voices alongside scientists, thus perpetuating the false balance without exposing them to the overwhelming consensus.
5. Manufacturing Controversy: Data can inform strategies to deliberately "manufacture controversy" online. By tracking trending topics and public sentiment, manipulators can strategically inject false balance narratives into discussions, using bots, sock puppet accounts, and coordinated campaigns to create the appearance of significant public disagreement where little credible debate exists. Data on user engagement with these campaigns helps refine tactics.

Manufactured Controversy: The creation of an artificial public dispute or debate around an issue that is largely settled or lacks significant credible opposition, often for political or commercial gain. False balance is a key technique used to manufacture controversy.

In essence, digital platforms provide both the infrastructure for rapid dissemination and the data streams that can be used to optimize the spread and impact of false balance as a tool for manipulating public understanding and behavior.

Common Examples of False Balance

False balance has been observed in reporting on numerous complex issues, often those with significant scientific consensus or overwhelming evidence.

• Climate Change: Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus (held by 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists) that Earth's climate is warming and that human activities are the primary driver, some media outlets have presented the views of climate change deniers or skeptics (a tiny minority) as if they represent a significant portion of the scientific community or offer an equally valid explanation. This gives the false impression that the basic science of human-caused climate change is still heavily debated among experts.
• Public Health Controversies:
  • Tobacco: For decades, the tobacco industry funded research and public relations efforts to create doubt about the link between smoking and severe health issues like cancer and heart disease. Media outlets sometimes presented the industry's position as one side of a debate, despite accumulating medical evidence proving the link.
  • Vaccine Safety: Controversies, such as the debunked claim linking the MMR vaccine to autism (initially based on a fraudulent study), have been amplified by false balance. Media coverage sometimes gave undue prominence to the study's author and his supporters, presenting their claims as equally credible to the vast body of evidence demonstrating vaccine safety and the lack of a link to autism. This has contributed significantly to vaccine hesitancy.
  • Other Health Scares: Similar patterns have appeared regarding the alleged negative side effects of other vaccines (like the HPV vaccine) or the safety of certain food additives or technologies, where fringe claims are presented as having equal scientific weight to established evidence.
• Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism: While evolution is the foundational theory of modern biology, some media and educational contexts have presented "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" as scientifically comparable alternatives, implying a scientific debate exists where, in fact, Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious or philosophical viewpoints not supported by scientific evidence.

In each of these examples, false balance creates confusion, downplays the seriousness of the issue, and makes it harder for the public to make informed decisions based on evidence.

Identifying False Balance

Recognizing false balance is crucial in navigating the modern information landscape. Look for these signs:

• Unequal Evidence, Equal Airtime: Are drastically different amounts of evidence presented as holding similar weight or given similar amounts of time/space?
• Lack of Context: Is the level of consensus or the factual basis of each viewpoint clearly explained? Is it mentioned that one position is widely accepted by experts while the other is a minority or fringe view?
• Credential Skew: Are individuals with strong, relevant expertise pitted against individuals with little or no relevant background, but presented as equally valid sources?
• Focus on Emotion/Anecdote over Data: Does one side rely heavily on personal stories or emotional appeals while the other presents data and research, yet both are framed as equally persuasive?

Protecting Yourself from Manipulation Through False Balance

Combating the effects of false balance requires critical information consumption:

• Seek Consensus Information: For complex issues, especially those related to science or public health, look for information from reputable institutions (universities, scientific bodies, government health organizations) that reflect the broad consensus view.
• Evaluate Sources Critically: Understand the potential biases and funding sources of the information you consume. Is the source an established news organization with editorial standards, or is it a partisan blog, an advocacy group, or an unverified social media account?
• Look for Depth and Context: Don't settle for quick, simplified summaries. Seek out articles or reports that explain the weight of the evidence and the level of agreement among experts.
• Be Wary of "Debates" on Settled Issues: If a topic widely accepted by experts (like the existence of climate change or the safety of vaccines) is presented as a raging "debate," it's a strong indicator of potential false balance or manufactured controversy.

Related Concepts

False balance is related to several other concepts that manipulate perception by distorting the relationship between different ideas or positions:

• False Equivalence: Presenting two vastly different things or ideas as being equally bad, good, or comparable when they are not. False balance is a specific type of false equivalence applied to presenting opposing viewpoints.
• Argument to Moderation (Argumentum ad Temperantiam): The fallacy that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle of two opposing positions. False balance often implicitly encourages this fallacy by suggesting that if there are two sides, the real answer must be a compromise between them, even if one side is entirely wrong.
• Golden Mean Fallacy: Similar to argument to moderation, the assumption that a moderate position between two extremes is always correct.
• Horseshoe Theory: A political theory suggesting that the far left and the far right, instead of being at opposite ends of a linear spectrum, resemble each other in certain ways, like the ends of a horseshoe. While a subject of political science debate, applying it simplistically can lead to false equivalence by focusing on superficial similarities between extremes while ignoring fundamental differences or the positions of the majority.

Understanding false balance and its related concepts is essential for discerning credible information from manipulation tactics, especially in the data-driven landscape of digital communication. It is a powerful tool used to confuse, divide, and control public perception by distorting the reality of what constitutes evidence, consensus, and legitimate debate.