The dangers of false equivalence in journalism during a US election year
Opinion
Arguably, British journalism damaged the future of its own audiences thanks to its insistence on false equivalence. With the US presidential race hotting up, will we see the same problem in media?
The wonderful Emily Maitlis, late of Newsnight, laid bare this week one of the greatest flaws of British journalism in recent years in a handful of sentences.
During the referendum campaign that took the UK out of the European Union, it would take BBC producers about six minutes to find 60 economists happy to warn about the dangers of Brexit. It took six hours to find six economists who would argue the case for leaving.
And yet, in the eventual studio debate, there would be two economists: one for Brexit and one against.
It was the ultimate form of false equivalence, leaving the impression in the minds of viewers that the two sides were roughly balanced, the equivalent of each other, when they were clearly not — journalism that ended up seriously disadvantaging the economic prospects of their viewers.
A media creation
Something similar has been happening in the US. Over there, it comes with unique and extreme twists, driven by the needs of a commercial television market that puts ratings above impartiality or fairness, even in such important matters of choosing who is going to run the world’s most powerful country.
That uniqueness was best expressed by Les Moonves, the then-executive chairman of CBS, who said of Donald Trump’s initial successful campaign for the presidency: ”It may not be good for America, but it is damn good for CBS.” Moonves went on to say that, because of the Trump circus, “the money is rolling in and this is fun”.
It actually conveyed perfectly how US networks — with their relentless, uncritical coverage — turned an immoral, failed businessman and TV presenter with a big mouth and a very loose grasp of the facts into a viable presidential candidate.
In a very real sense, Trump was a media creation and still is.
No equivalence
In recent weeks, there has been a lack of media equivalence between Trump, who is 78, and Joe Biden, who is three years older.
It was his appearances on television that fatally undermined the prospects of a second Biden term and newspapers such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times amplified the concerns over four more Biden years.
You can argue that it was a perfectly responsible line to take and the outcome will turn out to be the best for the US, Europe and the rest of the democratic world.
But it is equally true that the media did not expose the nonsense routinely spouted by Trump to the same degree of scrutiny regularly faced by Biden.
CNN did spend four minutes pointing out the many falsehoods in Trump’s inauguration speech, but the news network came close to admitting, in an echo of Moonves last time around, that ratings had been poor and it needed the impact of a “floundering Biden” drama to attract viewers.
The TV networks are still winners, because they now have the very special drama of whether a highly intelligent woman with family origins in India and Jamaica can overcome a Trump lead in the polls that has been boosted by the emotional impact of a failed assassination attempt.
UK stays neutral… mostly
It’s interesting how big the story played in the UK, with Biden’s departure from the race making just about every front page.
In the main, coverage was factual and neutral, with headlines such as: “Biden out… Kamala in?”
It was unfortunate that the Daily Star, which has built a reputation for sparky front-page headlines, decided to strike a sour note with: “Sleepy Joe: It’s time for a nap.”
The Daily Telegraph commentators were even more sour, with arch Brexiteer Tim Stanley suggesting that the Democratic Party had left it too late by around four years. “The Democratic Party’s reputation for compassion or brutal competence is already damaged,” said Stanley, who added that it had been guilty of reckless, cruel and shameful behaviour.
Actually, it was just normal politics and the realisation that, after many gaffes, it was increasingly unlikely that Biden could defeat Trump, who has been boosted by a tiny nick in his ear.
The Daily Mail got to the heart of the matter when it reported that, never mind doing what was right for the good of his party and the country, Biden was simply forced to change his mind about fighting on by polling data that showed he was no longer able to beat Trump.
New Republican challenge
On Monday night, a newly liberated Kamala Harris gave a powerful speech from the White House in which she listed the people she had prosecuted as a California attorney — everyone from sex offenders to operators of bogus colleges to corrupt bankers.
Theatrical pause.
“I know Donald Trump’s type,” she said to warm applause.
Harris is one smart lady and now the Republican Party is faced with fighting the election with the oldest candidate to ever seek re-election, with powers failing as noticeably as Biden’s, if not more so.
Special relationship
Interesting choices now face the British media, particularly the right-wing press.
If the Harris ticket starts to prosper with a campaign to support the “middle class” — as Americans like to call ordinary workers — against the Trump-backed billionaires, similarities might waft across the Atlantic.
Are there not similarities between what Harris wants to achieve and the objectives of Sir Keir Starmer following the premierships of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and and Rishi Sunak? A Harris presidency could mean a reinvigorated “special relationship” and a strengthening of two social democratic governments, whether they call themselves that or not.
When the penny drops, the British right-wing press will probably start attacking Harris as a dangerous leftie.
After all, Rupert Murdoch, at 93, found the time to attend the Republican convention that crowned Trump its candidate.
It will be interesting to see whether he turns up in Chicago next month, when Harris will almost certainly be chosen as the Democratic candidate to run for presidency.
Can we hope that, in the US, the 2024 presidential campaign will be covered without false equivalency?
Raymond Snoddy is a media consultant, national newspaper columnist and former presenter of NewsWatch on BBC News. He writes for The Media Leader on Wednesdays — read his column here.