False Balance and the Cost of Neutrality

“What do you do when both sides sound a bit crazy?”.

I attended a journalism talk recently and that line, albeit said half jokingly, has stuck with me. I used to think impartiality meant fairness; now I oftentimes find myself wondering if, in the name of balance, we not only flatten the truth, we erase it. Even if unintentionally.

To be impartial means to treat all equally; to not support any of the sides involved in an argument. But when does this neutrality cross the line? Impartiality without context is not dissimilar to detachment, particularly when its framing has the power to influence public perception. When the media gives equal weight to two sides of a story, even if one is rooted in misinformation, extremism, or disproven claims, it is so easy to say, “Some say X, others say Y”. Even when X might be a documented fact and Y is an amalgamation of disproven claims from questionable sources.

This becomes all the more dangerous in the short-form media we now regularly consume. For example, just a few weeks ago there was a 7-minute BBC segment reporting on how Israel had just landed a series of missile strikes on Gaza and halted humanitarian aid. Interviewing individuals about how this has caused further fear and damage, and, how Palestinians who had been returning home and were once again under attack. It is true, yes, Israel had attacked further targets. And yes, there had been loss of life. Which, of course, is tragic. There is no denying that. Nobody should have to be living in fear, and I dream of a better world… But this is the one we’ve got.

However, presenting this information without context, without nuance, starts fuelling a dangerous and misinformed narrative. They might have simply stated ‘facts’ and shared the sentiments of some of the individuals affected, but, in presenting this one sided narrative they might as well have said: "Israel is a reckless aggressor, indifferent to human life and international law." Because without mentioning that it was a result of multiple Hamas ceasefire breaches, including an attack that resulted in the deaths of two IDF soldiers, that is exactly the picture they have painted.

Modern media’s limited time seemingly has no space for context, leaving viewers with a flattened narrative: two sides, both loud, both flawed, both somehow equivalent. “The more you do it, the less opinionated you become”, whilst in many ways this could be a positive, information without pushing an agenda, I fear that there comes a point where emotional neutrality might feel like moral ambiguity. Thus, in erasing this nuance, impartiality quickly turns to abdication, creating a false balance between fact and conspiracy.

Why does this matter? Why am I concerned? Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is the direct effect this has on not only Israel as a nation but Jews overall. Antisemitism is on the rise and is something we cannot ignore, it is fuelled by this kind of harmful rhetoric and the painting of an untrue picture. However, moving beyond that it also erodes trust, viewers begin to feel gaslit… If both sides are “crazy,” who do you believe? In addition to rewarding extremism; we live in such a ‘click-baity’ instant gratification society, that now, the more outrageous a claim the more airtime it gets. All done in the name of ‘balance’,  we start silencing nuance. No longer is there space for complexity, history, or moral clarity.

And yet, this isn’t simply a result of these quick attention-grabbing headlines and social media reels. Even a recent BBC documentary featured a narrator with affiliations to Hamas, something that wasn’t made clear to viewers. Or Louis Theroux’s recent podcast with Bob Vylan. The issue isn’t just who is speaking, it is the way in which their voice is framed, challenged, or contextualised. Without that, the platform itself becomes a form of endorsement. And that, that is what is dangerous.

“I’m too young to remember when things were normal”, perhaps this volatility is the new normal, something we need to learn to accept but also adapt to handle. I think there is an argument to be made in how younger journalists are trained in chaos, not context. Which in turn, pairs with consumers’ appetite for short-form media, instant gratification, and a tendency among youth to take things at face value rather than think critically. I’m not trying to say this is an excuse for complacency or insinuate that younger journalists are to blame. I’ll admit, I myself struggle to navigate this fast paced media landscape. But I think it is something to note, and we should all try to do better. Think before we like and share. If we are consuming and spreading media that supports our views but don’t question the validity or the sources, we are no better ourselves.

And so I’ll leave you with the question wherein we started, “what do you do when both sides sound a bit crazy?”.