April 25, 2024 — I have in the past identified a media phenomenon that I called the syndrome of “False Imbalance.” No, not “False Balance,” where the journalist takes an issue that is in truth unbalanced and pretends it is balanced. In a misguided attempt to sound impartial, he or she presents an unsupported viewpoint (say, climate change denial) on equal basis with a factual one.
False Imbalance takes a debate that is in truth balanced and pretends it is imbalanced. A leader is described as under widespread attack, without indicating that half the attacks are coming from one direction and half from the opposite direction. The reader is given no way of knowing that the public figure may be steering a path that carefully balances the pros and cons.
An article in today’s New York Times reports that Columbia’s president is “fighting for her job”:
“Nemat Shafik, the university’s leader, met privately with faculty members, who could soon decide to admonish her… Dr. Shafik, who last week called in the police officers who made more than 100 arrests while they cleared a student protest encampment, is facing mounting calls for her resignation, including from House Speaker Mike Johnson…”
Neither in these sentences nor anywhere else in the article does it mention that many of the critics (e.g., most of those within the university) are attacking her for being too aggressive in clearing out disruptive pro-Palestinian demonstrators, while others (particularly outside politicians like the Speaker) are attacking her for not being aggressive enough! I don’t know whether Dr. Shafik (Minouche) has hit the balance precisely right. But the public is not given an opportunity to judge, if told only that everyone is against her. False imbalance.