Um, yeah, our news is balanced
Last Tuesday Pam provided a link to Larisa Alexandrovna who wondered why the MSM is working so hard to distract us (see http://www.huffingto…).
I’ve encountered a related affliction — a skewed definition of “balanced.” The recent version appeared in an article about the Battle Cry conference I mentioned yesterday. The article from yesterday’s online edition of the Detroit Free Press spoke of the conference in glowing terms, mentioned none of the inflammatory positions, and said, yeah, there were protesters. The print version in today’s issue was a bit different and had 3 nice pictures but the balance wasn’t any different. Neither version discussed why the protesters were there or contrasted the differing viewpoints.
There was a similar amount of balance in an article a month ago about David Blankenhorn, in the news because he is a Democrat who wrote a book about marriage that strongly opposes gay marriage. I wrote a rebuttal to the Detroit paper (which I don’t think got printed) and to the author, who works for another paper in California. My rebuttal focused on how unbalanced her article was for such a hot topic. She had featured Blankenhorn and included a quote that he had detractors. The author responded, defending her story, that it was a profile, not an in-depth look at the issue. When I told her that she sure went into Blankenhorn’s side of the issue in great depth, she responded by saying, “Since you obviously don’t understand what ‘balanced’ means there is no use discussing the matter with you.” Has Faux News distorted the meaning of “balanced”, or is it just me?