What’s more important, balance or truth?

There’s been chatter in media lately about the importance of balance in news and opinion, and whether balance should be given on unbalanced topics.

Should should extremists from both sides be given an equal forum? Or should views generally be sought from people in the centre-ish?Would that get too boring? And is excluding more leanings or more extremes a bad thing?

Or does this matter?

Is truth more important than balance?

14 Comments

  1. david in aus

     /  October 5, 2018

    Define Truth, that is the difficulty. If science has been established that the Earth is round, Flat-Earthers should be marginalized.

    But in most issues there is no definitive truth, there are shades of gray, different interests and perspectives.

    It is dangerous that an authority determines what is “Truth”. That is a license for tyranny. We see a variation of this in the MSM, the gate-keepers with an ideological bent, decide the stories to be told, the intensity and how they are told. “Balance” by many media purveyors are in name only. If there is a tendency to invite different perspective, despite some missteps, this is immensely preferable to the tyranny of censorship.

    • Griff.

       /  October 5, 2018

      If science has been established that the Earth is round, Flat-Earthers should be marginalized.

      Yes Alan If science comes up with an answer you dont get a choice you either acknowledge reality or.
      opps wait a minute I have come across hundreds of loony tunes who think science is a matter of opinion….
      We even had friutloops complain on here when The BBC refused to allow such flat earthers to add balance to program about a matter of established science.
      Come to think of it you Alan frequently link to a god addled fringe nutbar when it comes to some questions of science .
      Irony……..

      • Gezza

         /  October 5, 2018

        You’re replying to david in aus. If you want to have a go at Alan you need to move down one.

        • Corky

           /  October 5, 2018

          Crikey, I doubt Griff would pass peer review ( does he know what that means?)

  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  October 5, 2018

    What a stupid comment by Dowd. Having stupid opinions rather than intelligent ones is what hurts our world. There are lots of truths and idiots who think they have the only one deserve to be ignored.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 5, 2018

      I see Dowd was the campaign strategist for GW Bush/Cheney and is still fighting their rearguard action against Trumpy. No doubt this comment is part of that.

    • Gezza

       /  October 5, 2018

      😳

  3. sorethumb

     /  October 5, 2018

    They declare which is “good information” (theirs) and then there is the other stuff (rotten meat). So you can’t have both sides when better people already know the correct answer. In fact bad information (Don Brash) spreads faster than good information (“we know that”). As Doctors of Information we have to control, such a pandemic.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12108268

  4. Rickmann

     /  October 5, 2018

    Just what is Dr. Brash’s “bad information” ?

  5. PartisanZ

     /  October 5, 2018

    Why are we having these sorts of conversations?

    Balance is the more important of the two since the other one – ‘Objective Truth’ – simply doesn’t exist … and certainly not in the realms of human relationships and social organisation we’re referring to.

    Balance is more important than truth because truth ISN’T …

    Even a simple ‘truth’ like something weighs a tonne is only truth because mankind imposed a measurement system on the heaviness or ‘gravity load’ of objects and things ‘he’ found or made in reality … Weight is therefore subjective upon Man’s faculties … or in other words, “reality is subjective” …

    Opinion is the clash of subjective truths … yours and mine … which is the only kind of truth there is …

    • Gezza

       /  October 5, 2018

      Weight isn’t subjective. It’s objectively dependent on gravity.

      Officer: I’m giving you a ticket for speeding.
      Driver: But I wasn’t speeding.
      Officer: This is a 50 kph zone. I’ve got you recorded travelling at 74 kph. Are you disputing that?
      Driver: No.
      Officer: Good. That’s why I’m giving you a ticket for speeding.
      Driver. But that’s not speeding.

      • PartisanZ

         /  October 6, 2018

        Speed limits and velocity itself are merely subjective measurements of ‘truth’ we’ve imposed on reality and agreed to adopt to facilitate the functioning of society …

        Did people observe speed limits while riding horses in the old days?

        But speed and weight are simple agreed ‘truths’ by comparison to ‘freedom-of-speech vs race hatred’ or ‘gender equality issues’ … kore?

        Here the very idea that there exists an ‘objective truth’ is preposterous …

        • Gezza

           /  October 6, 2018

          Speed limits and velocity itself are merely subjective measurements of ‘truth’ we’ve imposed on reality and agreed to adopt to facilitate the functioning of society …
          Did people observe speed limits while riding horses in the old days?

          Give this line of argument up. It’s a philosophical fail.

          But speed and weight are simple agreed ‘truths’ by comparison to ‘freedom-of-speech vs race hatred’ or ‘gender equality issues’ … kore? Here the very idea that there exists an ‘objective truth’ is preposterous

          Ok.

  6. Blazer

     /  October 6, 2018

    kiwi blogger in younger days…is he bald?