I'm growing a little tired of the phrase, "There are two sides to every debate," because it's simply not true and needs to stop being treated as such.
Granted, at one time, there may have been two sides to every debate, yet it's foolish to think that what we debated 1,500 years ago should still be debated today. There was once debate on whether the earth was flat or round. That debate's now over. There's absolutely no point in further debating the matter. The issue was talked about at length for years and once the facts came in, it became clear that the earth was indeed round. So it'd be absolutely foolish for CNN to give equal airtime to a person whom accurately states that the earth is round and a person whom incorrectly states that the earth is flat.
That's perhaps the biggest problem with regard to the there-are-two-sides-to-every-debate theory - most "news" networks feel it's necessary to provide equal time to both sides of an issue to not appear biased, even though the facts may lean much more strongly in one direction than the other. Since people hear speakers of opposing sides at an equal duration, many come away with the notion that both arguments are equally plausible, and that's not true.
Approximately 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change/global warming, whereas 3% are either uncertain or don't believe it to be true. So why should that 3% receive equal airtime to the 97%? Sure, there might still be some debate with regard to the extent humans have contributed to climate change, but climate change itself is no longer up for debate.
According to studies, 98% of scientists believe in evolution, so once again, why are the 2% of deniers given equal airtime as the near consensus of scientists whom believe it to be fact? If a pill had a 98% effectiveness rate to cure one of cancer, do these networks really think people would side with the 2%, especially if given those specific numbers? Survey says? Not a fricking chance!
The anti-vaccination crowd is receiving a great deal of airtime on several different media outlets, but why? Time after time, it's been shown that not vaccinating children is far more dangerous to their health and others than vaccinating them. Remember polio? Does the anti-vaccination crowd think it just disappeared? What about measles? Why did that make a big sudden return in some parts of the country? Sure, the flu vaccine is hit and miss, but why are anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists given equal airtime as certified doctors?
We can debate all we want about who should be legally permitted to possess a gun and in what parts of a city firearms should be allowed to be carried, but there's no debating the fact that guns are dangerous, guns are deadly, and many people die via suicide or homicide annually due to them. So if networks want to air a debate regarding the constitutionality of possessing a firearm, then that's perfectly fine. However, if they want to air a debate between a police officer that regularly deals with gun crimes and a 2nd Amendment conspiracy theorist regarding whether or not guns are actually dangerous and kill people, then that's so ridiculous, it's Linda Blair eye-roll worthy.
Also, while the sample sizes to this point are rather small, here are some other trends in the world of studies:
- The death penalty doesn't deter homicides (according to 88% of criminologists)
- There's no link between race and crime, the link is between poverty and crime
- Homosexuality is indeed at least partially genetic (and children of gay parents don't suffer ill effects due to their parents' orientation)
- Marijuana is effective as a treatment medicinally for some conditions (and isn't as dangerous as alcohol)
So, please, while there may have, at one time, been a debate regarding each and every issue, we have science and studies for a reason - to provide answers, which leave little to no room to debate the matter any further; and it's high time news networks started reporting such matters more accurately, and with that, responsibly. It's more important for news networks to worry about reporting the facts than it is to worry about being seen as partisan. If the facts are partisan, then so be it.
Granted, at one time, there may have been two sides to every debate, yet it's foolish to think that what we debated 1,500 years ago should still be debated today. There was once debate on whether the earth was flat or round. That debate's now over. There's absolutely no point in further debating the matter. The issue was talked about at length for years and once the facts came in, it became clear that the earth was indeed round. So it'd be absolutely foolish for CNN to give equal airtime to a person whom accurately states that the earth is round and a person whom incorrectly states that the earth is flat.
That's perhaps the biggest problem with regard to the there-are-two-sides-to-every-debate theory - most "news" networks feel it's necessary to provide equal time to both sides of an issue to not appear biased, even though the facts may lean much more strongly in one direction than the other. Since people hear speakers of opposing sides at an equal duration, many come away with the notion that both arguments are equally plausible, and that's not true.
Approximately 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change/global warming, whereas 3% are either uncertain or don't believe it to be true. So why should that 3% receive equal airtime to the 97%? Sure, there might still be some debate with regard to the extent humans have contributed to climate change, but climate change itself is no longer up for debate.
According to studies, 98% of scientists believe in evolution, so once again, why are the 2% of deniers given equal airtime as the near consensus of scientists whom believe it to be fact? If a pill had a 98% effectiveness rate to cure one of cancer, do these networks really think people would side with the 2%, especially if given those specific numbers? Survey says? Not a fricking chance!
The anti-vaccination crowd is receiving a great deal of airtime on several different media outlets, but why? Time after time, it's been shown that not vaccinating children is far more dangerous to their health and others than vaccinating them. Remember polio? Does the anti-vaccination crowd think it just disappeared? What about measles? Why did that make a big sudden return in some parts of the country? Sure, the flu vaccine is hit and miss, but why are anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists given equal airtime as certified doctors?
We can debate all we want about who should be legally permitted to possess a gun and in what parts of a city firearms should be allowed to be carried, but there's no debating the fact that guns are dangerous, guns are deadly, and many people die via suicide or homicide annually due to them. So if networks want to air a debate regarding the constitutionality of possessing a firearm, then that's perfectly fine. However, if they want to air a debate between a police officer that regularly deals with gun crimes and a 2nd Amendment conspiracy theorist regarding whether or not guns are actually dangerous and kill people, then that's so ridiculous, it's Linda Blair eye-roll worthy.
Also, while the sample sizes to this point are rather small, here are some other trends in the world of studies:
- The death penalty doesn't deter homicides (according to 88% of criminologists)
- There's no link between race and crime, the link is between poverty and crime
- Homosexuality is indeed at least partially genetic (and children of gay parents don't suffer ill effects due to their parents' orientation)
- Marijuana is effective as a treatment medicinally for some conditions (and isn't as dangerous as alcohol)
So, please, while there may have, at one time, been a debate regarding each and every issue, we have science and studies for a reason - to provide answers, which leave little to no room to debate the matter any further; and it's high time news networks started reporting such matters more accurately, and with that, responsibly. It's more important for news networks to worry about reporting the facts than it is to worry about being seen as partisan. If the facts are partisan, then so be it.
Comments
Post a Comment