One of the complaints of the Skeptic community concerning journalism on such subjects as homeopathy and other quack remedies is that the journalists think that balance is the arch-goal, and often the only goal.
Therefore, the Skeptic community should be cheering Jennifer Rubin’s piece in WaPo yesterday on the next step the journalistic community must take to avoid enabling autocrat-wannabes in the future:
Fairness comes not in serving up equal portions of lies and truth, but in accurately separating, as best the media can at that moment, what is true and what is false. Instead of “balance,” which denotes an artificial leveling of the scales, reporters should aim for perspective, context and completeness. And, most critically, notions about moral equivalency between the parties and the assumption of sincerity and honesty from Republicans must be rethought in an era in which so many Republicans are indifferent, if not hostile, to truth and democracy.
Quacks, would-be theocrats, and other believers in the ridiculous may hate it, but facts and the study of reality – which is science – take precedence over their wants. Journalists are not finished when they’ve presented “both sides” of a subject. They need to also survey the relevant science, whether it be directly (hard), or by interviewing an acknowledged expert in the field (also hard, as sometimes an “expert” is either a fellow crackpot, or someone outside of their field). For example, a clash between a homeopath and a skeptic should include the fact that there are no solid scientific studies (which would be studies that have not been shot down by scientific criticisms about procedures or analysis, including making allowances for the well-known, yet mystifying, placebo effect) showing homeopathy has any efficacy.
“In fact, given the number of such studies that failed to show the effect, homeopathy is probably bullshit.” This might be a bit harsh, but accurate.
A good journalist would also include a short paragraph on how homeopathy might result in treatment delay, which, in the case of serious illness, can shrink life expectancy.
I think Rubin has done a service for the entire journalistic world here, not just for political reporters.
