False equivalence between sides is itself a hallmark of post-truth

Evidence

Indeed, to do so would be to engage in a kind of false equivalence that is the hallmark of post-truth itself. The “other side” of the post-truth debate does not consist of people who defend it—or think that post-truth is a good thing—but those who deny that a problem even exists. Yet (unless my aim is that of a debunker) to presume to write a book about post-truth is to admit that there is a problem. In my analysis I will therefore strive to be honest, but I cannot promise to be balanced. When the mistakes fall disproportionately on one side, it is no respect for the notion of truth to pretend that everything is even. — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 15

Categorization

• DEFINE: Identifies denial that a problem exists as post-truth’s defining counterpart, and false balance as complicity.
• XREF: connects to: The post-truth problem’s roots trace directly to academic postmodernism — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 241; False equivalence can disguise bias under a show of balance — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 350; Post-truth is a choice of response to reality, not a fixed condition (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Formal two-sided balance distorts rather than serves truth in reporting conflict #exemplifies (0.80) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 866
• Post-truth’s novelty is denying reality’s existence, not lying or spin. #expands (0.75) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 47
• Post-truth is a choice of response to reality, not a fixed condition #qualifies (0.72)
• Post-truth spans a spectrum from bullshit and spin to self-deception and delusion #complicates (0.72) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 46
• The elimination of effortful judgment erases the distinction between truth and falsehood #expands (0.72)