Evenhanded journalism can itself bias public scientific belief

Evidence

If journalists make efforts to be “fair” by presenting results from two sides of a scientific debate, they can bias what results the public sees in deeply misleading ways. — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age, 61

Categorization

• XREF: The classic ‘false balance’ problem — connects to climate and vaccine reporting debates, and generalizes the point that neutrality is not epistemically innocent. — connects to: An honest journalist sharing only surprising results can mislead the public — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 527; A journalistic novelty bias misleads on probabilistic evidence topics — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 522; Journalistic both-sides coverage can be weaponized to manufacture public ignorance — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 628 (+9 more)
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Journalistic both-sides coverage can be weaponized to manufacture public ignorance #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 628
• A journalistic novelty bias misleads on probabilistic evidence topics #expands (0.78) — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age, 522
• Journalistic rules of impartiality suppress reporters’ own inferences #expands (0.72) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 136
• Media ideology works through unspoken presumptions more than stated bias #corroborates (0.72) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 766