Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is there in the sense of false balance in the United States?

Rosner: We just had a discussion where you said I went on a rant, which I believe to be accurate, about it being a Republican strategy to appeal to less informed voters because they are a capturable demographic. The GOP has been trying to capture them and has been largely successful since the 1970s. Where we are now is the result of 50 years of targeting these voters. In the U.S., there are both sides. If you present one side as terrible, you must show the other side as less than ideal. Or if you have a point of view from one side, whether or not it’s true, you have to have a point of view from the proper other side. This concept is well-known enough for both sides to be a common political term since Trump came along. Maybe people knew about it but didn’t have a term for it before Trump.

It’s journalistic neutrality, where you’re supposed not to take sides. However, that only works when two legitimate sides to an issue exist. For example, debates like, “Does welfare help or hurt Black families?” You can argue that it’s a racist issue in the first place; it shouldn’t be just Black families but all families. From the start, it’s a flawed debate. But if you’re going to have the discussion, one side might say supporting single-parent families doesn’t encourage two-parent families, which are generally more successful at child-rearing. Despite the racist premise, there could be arguments from each side.

But then you move on to issues like whether Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6th. There are no two sides to that. They did. It’s been demonstrated through hundreds of hours of video footage and over a thousand arrests. The argument that it was Antifa or the FBI as a false flag operation is false. Discussing both sides of this issue as if they are equally valid is harmful and misleading. Achieving journalistic balance by presenting both sides of a factually one-sided issue is stupid and corrosive. This is a well-known issue. Other people have said the same thing for years, so I don’t need to elaborate further.

Jacobsen: Do you watch any political news in other countries?

Rosner: Occasionally, I watch BBC News.

Jacobsen: Have you noticed this issue with the BBC or in Britain?

Rosner: I don’t watch enough of it to tell you, but I assume some of the same issues are present, for example, in France, where Marine Le Pen, a super right-leaning politician, might become president. Her father, who led her party before her, is a Holocaust denier. She represents a very right-wing group that has been fighting for more power for decades. There must be some bad journalistic practices contributing to this. To let things get to that point, I don’t know much about France, but I doubt people just drifted to the lunatic right all by themselves.

Jacobsen: What about Mexico or Canada?

Rosner: I don’t follow their news less closely. You guys still seem relatively sane. You did have one particularly insane mayor, Doug Ford.

Rosner: Doug Ford and Rob Ford, that’s correct. Rob Ford was his brother.

Jacobsen: Rob Ford’s dead, right? He was mayor of which city?

Rosner: Toronto. He was a drugged-up lunatic who was somewhat beloved for his outrageous behaviour. He only managed to be mayor, and I forget the chain of events that led to that, but he didn’t end up leading a major political party. Canada has about 40 million people, meaning around 30 million potential voters. For a situation similar to the U.S., you would need a party with a reliable base of 10 million voters supporting a lunatic like Rob Ford. You don’t have that. You have some Trump-like figures, but they aren’t a third of your voters. In Canada, do journalists try to strike a balance between the liberals and the far-right?

The Freedom Convoy was where truckers protested against lockdowns and COVID restrictions. They seemed pretty ridiculous, as most restrictions had been lifted by then. Canadian journalists did not generally present them favourably. So, is the Canadian press less inclined to engage in brain-dead both sides compared to U.S. media?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s true. However, when there are legitimate conservative concerns, they can sometimes be missed due to ideological bias.

Rosner: But legitimate conservative arguments can still be heard, right? Even liberal stations like MSNBC will present valid conservative points if they are reasonable.

Jacobsen: Maybe.

Rosner: Fox News always hammers on issues like the border and crime, often exaggerating them. Crime rates are at multi-decade lows, and major cities have seen further drops.

Jacobsen: Fox News portrays a hellscape, and Trump claims he will fix it if re-elected. MSNBC doesn’t focus much on this because the crime rise isn’t natural. Legitimate conservative arguments can be heard on CNN and MSNBC, but many conservatives make extreme, baseless arguments appealing to their base.

—

Rick Rosner, American Television Writer, http://www.rickrosner.org

Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Independent Journalist, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.