Saturday Sermon: Opposing Viewpoints Versus Outside Perspectives

Most people who follow the interaction between science and politics are well aware of the problem of 'he-said, she-said' reporting, the attempt to grant equal time to opposing views, no matter how stupid those ideas are (An aside: I've always imagined a Monty Pythonesque TV anchor turning to a guest, and saying, "And now, for the stupid and incorrect viewpoint, we turn to..."). With that being said, I like how Ivan Oransky rephrases the problem:

The other day, a tweet by Maggie Koerth-Baker, a freelance science journalist in Minneapolis, caught my eye. In it, she bemoaned the fact that editors and producers often encourage their reporters to go find an "opposing viewpoint" to make a story balanced. She said her journalism school professors -- she graduated in 2004 -- always told her the same thing.

That troubled me.

I've been teaching medical journalism at New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program since 2002, and I taught a similar course at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism for three years. As I told Maggie and the others having the conversation on Twitter, I never tell my students to get "opposing viewpoint" but to get outside perspective -- one that may agree with the study or the main idea being put forward by a source.

Rephrasing the issue this way makes it much clearer. Now if only political reporters would do the same....

More like this

This post is written by a special guest - Ivan Oransky, executive editor at Reuters Health, who I had the pleasure of meeting in person at Science Online 2010. I was delighted when Ivan accepted my invitation to follow up a recent Twitter exchange with a guest-post, and shocked that he even turned…
In my response to my post about Maureen Dowd's brief relapse into sanity, PhysioProf writes: Dowd's been on the list of the top ten mainstream shitbag media enablers of the depraved right-wing Democrat-feminizing-gayifying shell game for twenty fucking years. As far as I'm concerned, she can go…
Hunter has a superb piece on the declining (or perhaps negligible) authority of the punditocracy. Hunter writes: I have never (and I do mean, never) gotten the impression that anyone among the upper echelons of the press understands just how badly their long-term credibility has been damaged by…
On Sunday, I interviewed Maggie Koerth-Baker, the author of Before the Lights Go Out: Conquering the Energy Crisis Before It Conquers Us. The interview was live on radio, but you can listen to it here as a podcast. Maggie is the science editor at Boing Boing, a journalist, and has had an interest…

New Scientist articles do this frequently. Very often, even in pretty non-controversial reports, there is "So-and-so, who was not part of the study, said . . ." where the comments vary from "Gee. wouldn't it be nice if it were true" to "I think that most unlikely because . . .".