<
https://theconversation.com/suicide-for-democracy-what-is-bothsidesism-and-how-is-it-different-from-journalistic-objectivity-230894>
"“Bothsidesism” is a term of disparagement against a form of journalism that
presents “both sides” of an issue without any regard for their relative
evidentiary merits.
The term has been used to describe media reporting on Donald Trump and in
relation to coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. For some, mentioning Israel’s
ongoing occupation of Gaza in the context of last year’s October 7 terror
attacks by Hamas will be a form of bothsidesism.
Yale history professor Timothy Snyder has described bothsideism as “suicide for
democracy”.
If journalists just say “there are two sides to everything and I am going to
find my way into the middle”, he said earlier this year in relation to
reporting on Trump’s rallies, “you are always going to give the people who want
to overthrow the system an advantage” because you are sharing your legitimacy
with theirs.
This week, former publisher Louise Adler criticised the lack of attention paid,
on the anniversary of the October 7 attacks, to their consequences for
Palestinians, but clarified she wasn’t calling “for bothsidesism”. She
continued, quoting writer Jacqueline Rose: “balance is a corrupt term in an
unbalanced world”.
Balance, properly understood, is not a corrupt term, but what Adler is alluding
to is a well-deserved critique of a kind of reporting that perverts the concept
of impartiality. This journalistic quality has become crucial in today’s
hyper-partisan political atmosphere. However, far from being an element in
impartiality, “bothsidesism” undermines it."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics