Balance

          I do not believe that journalists should grant equal time to scientists who have beliefs or conceptions of scientific reality that do not match the majority. We have discussed repeatedly in class the importance of making sure that our readers are scientifically literate. Are we as science journalists doing our readers a disservice by presenting issues that are largely irrelevant? I would argue yes. We already are very aware of how little time people spend on science writing, and I think that it is important to use that time as efficiently as possible. Give the reader exactly what they need to know.

          This is not to say that it is not important to present other findings that may be conflictual with what science is saying. There are instances in which a portion of science has largely been overlooked and now new scientific evidence is refuting published work. It is important to not dismiss information because it does not coincide with what we believe, unless the majority has already proven it false. What may be important for science writers is to present the conflicts in that particular researcher rather than dismiss it as “hogwash.” Unfortunately, the challenge is when to present the other side.

          Balance in journalism, in my opinion, refers to using the data that we have to present what we know. If the data overwhelmingly supports one particular position with little to no objection I see very little need to present the other argument. Many readers cannot decipher which is the right argument if you put them both in equally. If the reader would like to find out more about the opposing opinion they are able to search through other publications. I will not lie about what the research shows by including irrelevant arguments, but I will also not deny that there is other research available if you look for it. In fact, I would not be against having an attachment or link to a website that gives the opposing opinion which would allow the reader the choice whether to look for further information.

          While balance in journalism is important, I believe honesty and integrity is superior. If we over embellish the other argument we run the risk of falsely influencing our readers and I find that to be dishonest. There are some issues that both arguments could be important, for example Hydraulic Fracturing. There are others that are just simply misleading, for example the lack of relationship between HIV and AIDS. If we are true to the science, the journalism should be simple.