I can't say it any better -- Balance, Shmalance

All journalists struggle with the idea of giving equal play to opposing sides of an argument. Not because we agree or disagree with one side or because we have such distaste for enabling public dialog. No, that's not it. The question (i.e. the problem) lies in the doctrine that says, for a story to be fair, both sides of the argument need equal coverage. Okay. That sounds fine in theory, but in practice, it causes all sorts of coverage fiascoes.

Does the one irate man at the City Council meeting merit as many inches as the dozens of attendees who disagree with him. Are we creating balance where it didn't exist before? And if we are, how in the hell do we decide how much coverage something deserves? Who gets to say that one side is more important than the other without reverting to the kind of partisan journalism we all abhor so much?

In a new piece on Poynter, Cindi E Deutschman-Ruiz details some of those problems, specifically in writing and reporting on LGBT issues. She contrasts coverage with that of race issues. She's right in pointing out that we would never write about once race being better than the other today, as we do with sexuality. But she's missing one of the key points.

...at some point along the line, the concept of racial equality stopped being a point of view in this country and became a generally accepted truth instead.

Here's the problem with following that logic to the next step (which, on its surface, seems entirely plausible): that journalists should not have to balance things that are not actually equal, that we should not have to arbitrarily designate two sides to complex and nuanced issues or continue to give space to those who are, essentially, hate mongers.

But the prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people does not exist in one geographic area, or one political party or any other people or place that can be pointed at as the example of where ideology and dogma went too far. It's everywhere, I hate to say. America has not yet reached a place where sexual equality is a generally accepted truth and it's not going to anytime soon.

She is correct in her more general wish, that we stop treating every side of an issue as equal and indispensable.

I can’t endorse the current system. I think it’s disingenuous and just plain wrong.

What abandoning false balance would mean in the daily practice of journalism -- what kinds of ripple effects it might have -- are questions I don’t pretend to be able to answer.

I don't think anyone could say. But it would certainly be interesting.