Fox News seeks refuge in bothsidesism

And why not — balance is a good thing, right? Well, it depends on what you’re balancing. Quoting a scientist warning of the threat from climate change alongside the meanderings of a denier, for instance, won’t cut it. In a 2014 essay in the Columbia Journalism Review, Robert S. Eshelman explained how the desire for “balance” handicapped efforts to cover that pressing issue. “By now, we should have progressed to intense coverage of policy debates about how best to address climate change, not whether it exists. In this one case, balance has been the enemy of the truth,” he writes. The “debate” over tobacco was another casualty: “Tobacco was the first big, systematic denialist campaign,” Naomi Oreskes, co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” told Eshelman. “The obvious lesson for journalists is to know that this exists, that it depends on appealing to journalistic virtues of balance and objectivity.” Letting that appeal succeed “leads journalists into a swamp,” said Oreskes.