both-sideism problems
Media created myths are often created by reporting which doesn’t include both sides.
- Keep in mind that these stories featured here are those with two actual sides (a male and a female) and not of the policy based ones where there is an “invented” side.
- What can we learn from journalism of stories about two side-ism here? On other more political stories is there legitimately an other side? Wouldn’t it be better to report the number of people affected instead of equating a small 5-10% group of fringe people as the “other side” when the majority of those affected are a clear majority. So for example, in equality of marriage, is there actual harm to the smaller proportion of religious fanatics who stand against it by providing it? Should they be reported on and given an outsized influence in the reportage?
- What criteria should be used for creating “balanced coverage”?
- Should there be demonstrated public wrongs for a side to be heard?
- What affect does public pressure play on what is shown/reported?
- What is the effect of who is given a voice? (Men over women in some of the cases; White over Black in some racialized cases, etc.)
Source
[[On the Media - Maligned Women - August 24, 2021 at 0141PM]]
tags:
links: journalism both-sideism power voice
- broader terms (BT): mythology media studies
- narrower terms (NT):
- related terms (RT):
- used for (UF) or aliases:
connected ideas:
MOC: