You hear a lot in journalism about “balance” in the news, where reporters present each side of an issue. But in recent years more and more journalists are reluctant to actually render a judgment on what gets said. The art of journalistic analysis has fallen on hard times. Something similar also happened in academia as a result of the scourge of “deconstructionism” that has plagued much of academia for the last couple of decades. What began as a perfectly reasonable notion, the idea that every idea deserves a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas, devolved into the dogma that all ideas are equally valid and deserve equal respect. The so-called “Postmodern” (a word that, for the life of me, I have never seen adequately defined) outcome of this philosophy is the assertion that we can’t really know anything, because all truth (and this is the really weird bit) is “socially constructed” out of the biases of the dominant (usually male) culture and power structures. Another hallmark of Postmodernism is the inability to make value judgments. If every idea is “equally valid”, it’s much harder to criticize and reject absurd ideas. Balancing one idea against another will tend towards stalemate.

Returning to journalism, “balance” has become a substitute for actually analyzing the news. Years ago, James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece in the February, 1996 issue of Atlantic Monthly titled “Why Americans Hate the Media” (subscription required). In it he cogently argued that Americans are justifiably angry with the media, particularly during elections, because they only hear about how a candidate’s sound bites, gestures, or missteps affect his chances to win. Almost never, Fallows argues, do they hear whether this or that policy or campaign promise would actually be good for America.

“Balance” does not guarantee quality information. Balance can be having two proponents of differing but well-regarded opinions present their views, but also, say, a documentary on the Holocaust that includes a “Holocaust denier” in the name of balance. Balance it may be. But, it’s also dereliction of intellectual duty. No legitimate historian of that period would agree that the Holocaust never happened. To air such a position alongside legitimate history is appalling. “We report, you decide” is a cop-out, an evasion of journalistic responsibility. “Balance” is too often used to air views that are absurd or unsupportable in the name of “balance”, or using an unqualified responder who can’t cogently address the weaknesses in an opposing view.

Fairness demands that the presenter look at both sides and actually render an analysis to say what we should take seriously, and what we should not. Our larger marketplace of ideas dearly needs more fairness.