False balance means that a scientist or a study that stands alone with its claim is weighted just as highly as knowledge built up over decades.
If two scientists disagree, you should not equate them uncritically. Clarify if one party is backed by the majority of science.
During your training as a journalist, you have probably learnt the excellent principle that all parties of a case or a situation must be heard.
When the left-wing gets speaking time, the right-wing should have it, too. It is a matter of balance and impartiality.
It is a good principle that helps to ensure objective coverage of everything from political disagreements in parliament to neighbourhood disputes in a rural municipality.
But the principle of balance is not always equally relevant to science reporting.
For example, several news outlets’ coverage of climate research gave equal time to scientists talking about man-made climate change and climate sceptics.
That practice has been fiercely criticized in recent years for creating the erroneous impression that scientists are divided on the subject, despite the fact that the vast majority of research showed long ago that humans are responsible for global warming.
In other words, the media have been guilty of a false balance in climate coverage.
\ Download the guide
This article is part of the guide 11 tips for journalists: How to avoid blunders when reporting on science. The guide is accessible in three formats:
Online articles regarding each of the 11 tips.
The full guide of 11 tips as a PDF-file.
The 11 tips as a checklist, a one-pager.
Underline the scientific consensus
This example clearly shows that you risk distorting your story and misleading your readers, viewers and listeners if you uncritically report the views and quotes of two dissenting scientists.
Sometimes, there is widespread disagreement in research and no clear scientific consensus. Here, of course, two sides of an issue must weigh equally.
But when you, as a journalist, talk about conflicting views in research, you should examine whether one view has significantly greater scientific support than the other.
It should be quite clear in your coverage if one scientist speaks based on scientific consensus, while the other has conducted a single controversial study that reaches a different conclusion.
Avoiding false balance is not about muzzling the minority. A new study that goes against the scientific consensus may be important and perhaps the first step towards changing the scientific consensus.
Suggested questions
If you, as a journalist, think critically and clearly state what scientists base their arguments on, their disagreement can make readers wiser. Ask the scientists:
- How do you know that?
- Are there other studies that point to the same thing?
- Is there a scientific consensus on what you are saying or what your study is showing?
That way, you can both assess the research critically and at the same time ensure that your angle actually corresponds with reality.
Read more tips by clicking the blinking icons at the left in the graphic below.
\ About the Science Journalism Guide
This guide is for journalists and journalism students who are working on science and research news.
It provides 11 specific tips on how to avoid common pitfalls when covering science material.
The guide is written by journalists at the leading Danish popular science site Videnskab.dk.
It summarizes our many years of experience and the best solutions for communicating research and science critically and nuanced and with credibility.
Help us learn
The guide is based on our own experiences as journalists at Videnskab.dk, and we have received feedback and input from several talented scientists, communicators and journalism students.
It is important to emphasize that the guide sets out only general guidelines and rules of thumb.
No two stories are alike, and you will probably come across science stories where the guide is lacking or where it doesn’t make sense to follow all the tips. In other words, the 11 tips in the booklet are not set in stone.
If you have ideas or suggestions for how our guide — or our journalism at Videnskab.dk — can be improved, we would always like to hear from you. If you have questions, or if you are interested in a presentation on science journalism from Videnskab.dk, you are also welcome to contact us. You can write to us at redaktion@videnskab-wp.wp.stage.combell.peytz.dk.
The guide has been compiled by
Lise Brix, Ditte Svane-Knudsen, Anne Ringgaard, Thomas Hoffmann, Frederik Guy Hoff Sonne og Marie Barse.
Editing and layout: Jonas Salomonsen og Jon Mathorne.
Illustrations: Thøger Junker.
Translation: Stephanie Lammers-Clark. Proofread by Randy B. Hecht.
©Copyright and publisher: Videnskab.dk.
Thanks for help, input and feedback
Videnskab.dk has recieved economic support for our work with developing and sharing knowledge about science journalism from Den Fynske Bladfond, a foundation that supports free press in Denmark.
The following has provided valuable input and feedback:
Claus Emmeche (Associate Professor), Eske Willerslev (Professor), Felix Riede (Professor, AU), Gunver Lystbæk Vestergård (PhD in science journalism), Jesper Lesager Christensen (Journalism Student), Karin Frei (Professor), Kresten Roland Johansen (Lecturer, science journalism), Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen (Associate Professor,), Lasse Laustsen (Associate Professor), Mads Faurschou Knudsen (Associate Professor), Maja Horst (Professor), Mikkel Gerken (Professor), Oluf Danielsen (External Lecturer), Peter Hyldgård (Chairman, Danish Science Journalists), Simon Taarnskov Aabech (Journalism Student), Søren Kjørup (Philosopher, Emeritus), Andreas Søndergaard Petersen (Journalist, TjekDet) as well as journalism students at Roskilde University and Danish School of Media and Journalism.
