A common criticism of the BBC’s desire to portray both sides of a story is that it gives apparent equality of weight to angles that are largely disputed by scientific evidence. Research from Northwestern University highlights how harmful this can be to the scientific knowledge of the public.

This “bothsidesism” is apparent when the media try to provide both sides of a debate with equal airtime, even when nearly all credible on one side rather than the other.

Climate debate

The researchers focused their attention on climate change, as despite the argument that climate change isn’t something manmade being debunked by science repeatedly, it’s a belief many Americans have. The researchers hypothesized that this is in part because the news media continue to give climate change deniers a platform in the name of so-called balanced reporting.

They found that this attempt to provide balance undermines people’s confidence in the scientific consensus on the issue at hand. Indeed, it can sometimes even prompt us to doubt whether the issue is worth taking seriously at all.

This wasn’t just found with climate change, as the researchers found it was equally corrosive with Covid-19, and especially interventions like mask-wearing, as the presence of anti-maskers in the media caused unnecessary confusion among the public.

“Climate change is a great case study of the false balance problem, because the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. If 99 doctors said you needed surgery to save your life, but one disagreed, chances are you’d listen to the 99,” the researchers explain. “But we often see one climate scientist pitted against one climate denier or down player, as if it’s a 50-50 split.”

Equal arguments

The researchers conducted three experiments to explore how we respond when two climate change positions are presented as equally valid, even though one has considerably more scientific agreement behind it than the other.

“When both sides of an argument are presented, people tend to have lower estimates about scientific consensus and seem to be less likely to believe climate change is something to worry about,” the researchers explain.

There are three negative outcomes when the media try to present both sides as equal. It can not only sow doubt on the availability of a consensus, while also cause confusion about what is and is not true, and lastly prompt us to seek a more placating option.

If news outlets want to continue presenting both sides of a debate, they can prevent the negative consequences by emphasizing the broader consensus that exists among experts. The researchers believe this helps to reduce the weight given to those on the anti-science stance.

“If you can remind people about the consensus view, they take that up and they use it,” the authors conclude.