I’ve been hearing the song Both Sides Now since earliest childhood, but I had no idea just how many versions existed. The song was written by Joni Mitchell, and first released by American folk musician Dave Van Ronk and the Hudson Dusters, under the title “Clouds” in 1967. I hadn’t heard that version before, but I was certainly familiar with the 1968 version by Judy Collins, and the one by Anne Murray, and Frank Sinatra, and an endless list of others, from the 1970s to now. One I’d like to call out, though, is the extraordinary performance by Emilia Jones in the film CODA, in which she sings and simultaneously signs in American Sign Language.
The song can be interpreted in endless ways, but I think it is ultimately about the transition from childhood, to adulthood, to “wisdom”. We all start with childlike innocence and ignorance about the world, and many of us become jaded as we learn hard lessons through growing up. This song describes the process of taking the innocence of youth and the knowledge of adulthood and finding joy again though understanding and balance.
Unfortunately, the word “balance” is often used as an excuse for twisting the truth and for misleading people in more and more extreme ways.
I’ve commented on False Equivalence and False Balance before, and on misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, and even on the dangers of basing your worldview on disinformation. The “balance fallacy”, however, may be the most insidious method of twisting the truth and justifying both action and inaction.
US examples are often the clearest. Compare the US presidential candidates in 2008. Barack Obama worked as a civil rights attorney, then in the Illinois Senate, and then in the US Senate before running for president. John McCain served in the US Navy, then in the US House of Representatives, then in the US Senate before running for president. While their experiences and positions were obviously different, both men had experience in government and both had proven track records which could be usefully compared.
Jumping forward eight years, Hillary Clinton worked as a lawyer, then as First Lady of Arkansas, then as First Lady of the United States. While neither of these are latter two are elected positions, both can be heavily political and can offer unique experience, and Hillary Clinton was very much involved in both roles. Later, she served in the US Senate, and then as US Secretary of State. She was one of the most qualified people ever to run for president. In stark contrast, Donald Trump had no government experience whatsoever, a total of six businesses which filed for bankruptcy, and a long history of legal actions associated with him and his businesses.
There was absolutely no comparison to be made between the qualifications of the two candidates, but that did not stop people from “comparing” their “qualifications”. This false balance was also used in describing what they said. Hillary Clinton describing “half” of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” was obviously a mistake politically, but does it compare in any way with the constant stream of hate and lies Trump spewed? His comments (and actions) toward women? Or maybe his comments about violence (and even torture)? Or his attacks on John McCain?
The media deserves a lot of the blame, and it’s gotten worse over recent years. Both sides are NOT the same, and should not be considered in the same terms. Look at the recent fact checking during the Harris – Trump debate. According to FactCheck.org, Harris made several claims which were false – including a high-end estimate of the cost of Trump’s proposed tariffs, a claim about the unemployment rate being the “worst since the Great Depression” when it wasn’t (quite) that high, and a claim about the cost of Trump’s tax proposal which was exaggerated. The horror!
In (again) stark contrast, Trump claimed that “they’re eating the dogs”, that “millions of people” are “pouring into our country from prisons, jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums”, that Democrats were in favour of abortion “in the ninth month”, and many other statements which can only be described as pure bullshit.
It’s not “balance”, when one side is exaggerating occasionally, and the other is a pouring out a torrent of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. It’s not “balance” to give equal weight to people claiming that the link between smoking and cancer was not “conclusively proved”, or to give equal weight to climate change deniers, or anti-vaxxers, or to people claiming to be “pro-life” while blocking access to healthcare.
We need to educate people (including ourselves) about the difference between journalistic objectivity and “bothsideism”, which is described by history professor Timothy Snyder as “suicide for democracy”.
Sounds about right.
Balance is great, but watch out for people who try to drop a bomb on one side of the scale. They are not your friend.
Cheers!
Комментарии