"Bothsidesism": What is It and What Does It Mean?

The false balance fallacy, otherwise known as bothsidesism, is the equivocation of two acts unequal in their scope to support the validity of one side of an argument. The ongoing conversation about American politics is the most current, glaring example of this, and is a topic of frequent discussion among American journalists.

Bothsidesism is difficult to objectify because it is based on subjective topics. When it comes to journalism, treading a line on wanting diverse points of view in one’s work versus needing a “contrasting point of view” is very difficult. Quite a few journalists disseminated false information about Hunter Biden via Twitter in March 2021, resulting in the suspension of several accounts, including the New York Post, for reporting misinformation. Hunter Biden’s foreign affairs have been a common talking point among conservatives, and despite little evidence, many news sources rushed to report a seeming victory for the conservative “side.”

The presidency of Donald Trump and the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted the dangers of “bothsidesism,” as Trump proved an unreliable source and openly hostile to the media. Meanwhile, COVID-19 misinformation (some of which was perpetuated by the Trump administration) presented the public with hazardous pseudoscience, including the suggestion that ingesting bleach, malaria medication, or even the horse dewormer Ivermectin would treat COVID-19. Some misinformation has portions of the public avoiding scientifically approved treatments for COVID-19 altogether, and dying from the virus as a result.

In his 1998 book The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription, journalist Ross Gelbspan touched on the danger of bothsidesism when reporting on climate change, writing that:

“The professional canon of journalistic fairness requires reporters who write about a controversy to present competing points of view. When the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness – presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight – is a fundamental check on biased reporting. But this canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points of views on a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they do not.”

The good news is, the majority of journalists are against the use of bothsidesism in the current political and social climate. The bad news is, the public is not. 55 percent of journalists say that there is no need to consistently report on “both” sides of every single issue, but only 22 percent of the public agrees. A staggering 76 percent of the public said the media had a duty to report on both sides of every issue, regardless of the validity of the “side.” 

So though journalists are narrowly on the same page, working with the public and their understanding of the issues to veer away from misinformation as “opinion” is work journalists are responsible for helping the public understand. Best practices such as clear presentation of data, sources, and transparency will better aid the public in understanding what can be highlighted on the news.