The Return to Balance: A Freelance Writer’s Quest

Last week we had an important and lively discussion over the Fight for Truth and what the freelance writer’s role was.

One point in particular drove a ton of discussion — presenting all sides of a topic. My stance was/is that presenting dissenting views shouldn’t be avoided, but embraced.

It’s common practice in journalism to include the voices of those views don’t align necessarily with the premise of the article or with popular opinion. In fact, nearly every editor I’ve worked for or with has asked a similar question at some point: “Can we get some kind of input from the other side?”

Why?

Because it’s called fairness and balance. Opposing viewpoints make for a discussion, not a lecture. Opposing opinions shows that the writer is not forcing his or her opinion, not leading the story, and certainly not telling a reader “This is what you need to believe.”

I know there was disagreement with this point on my original post. But the very inclusion of the dissenting opinions? That right there illustrates the very point of why presenting all sides matters. The dissenting views created a deeper, richer conversation in that very post.

Imagine that.

So, on to how you’re going to ensure you have a more balanced approach going forward. And know that in most cases, balance matters. Not all — you’re not going to need balance for say an article on how to tune a carburetor or how to install a ceiling fan. Or maybe you will. You won’t know until you get an opinion that doesn’t quite mesh with the opinions of your other expert sources.

To get an idea of what balance actually is, let’s look at some of the ways it’s been interpreted.

From the Ethical Journalism Network:

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

That sets a fairly good standard, I think. It’s not an obligation, that’s true. But I like how they juxtapose that with how stories should be balanced and “add context.” Isn’t that our job to help readers understand the scope of the topic we’re covering?

Even college journalism departments understand the importance of balance. Here’s Seton Hill University’s Basic Principles of News Writing:

Balance your quotes so they are not all one-sided. If the majority of a crowd loved a particular performance make sure to show this through quotes, but it is also important to find that representative voice of the minority of people who hated the show.

Why is that important? Because creating the impression that everyone is in agreement isn’t presenting the entire picture. It’s out of balance, right? Why does that matter? Think about a world in which the only voice of governmental activity is Fox News.

You still okay with an unbalanced view?

For me, NPR’s journalistic standards cover balance well:

Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth….

….We do our best to report thoroughly and tell stories comprehensively. We won’t always have enough time or space in one story to say everything we would like or quote everyone we would wish to include. But errors of omission and partial truths can inflict great damage on our credibility, and stories delivered without the context to fully understand them are incomplete.

To me, that’s the entire reason for what they do and why. Notice they said they’re not creating the “appearance of balance.” That’s a big deal. Too often, news organizations (and pseudo-news organizations) throw one lone dissenting voice into the mix just to prove they’re being “balanced.” That’s not balance — that’s slapping a bandage on where a tourniquet is desperately needed.

Balance in Your Work

So let’s see how we can create balance in our work. Because it’s easier explained by example, I’ll use a few from my own workday.

The Dissenter

In an article I was writing about marijuana legalization and the business impact of it, I had plenty of voices telling me that the risks, while sizable, were easily dealt with. That marijuana had a market within workers’ compensation (an opioid alternative) and that it wasn’t deserving of its Schedule I classification.

Then there was the dissenter. Not only did he outline all the ways in which the other experts were wrong, he related his own belief that marijuana poses some serious health risks. He backed up what he was saying with some strong research.

That belonged in the article. Why? Because the idea was to present the idea to readers who are making business decisions based on the information presented to them. If I omitted the dissenting viewpoint, and if every other news outlet did the same, they’re making decisions based on one side of the story. Plus, it wasn’t just one guy with an axe to grind. This was a guy with a medical degree who thought the serious concerns were being whitewashed.

So when don’t you include the dissenting voice? Here are my own guideposts:

• When it’s clear there’s a financial benefit to the dissenter holding that opinion (as in “The only insurance you should have is through Company X” when this person sells that insurance)
• When the dissenter is misrepresenting their intentions (I’ve had a few interview sources who were clearly looking for publicity and had nothing to add to the conversation)
• When the dissenter’s words don’t make sense (meaning if they’re talking about marijuana and suddenly are talking about why rain water makes a good astringent — too much marijuana, perhaps?)
• When the vibe is off or the situation spirals into something bizarre or scary
• When they have an alternative agenda or have nothing to add to the conversation (as in the people who say “You should be writing about this instead” and won’t stay on your topic)

The Hot Topic

I wrote about how the anti-vaccine belief may be impacting the insurance industry (higher claims? more exposure?). Even though the article was facing insurance people, I knew I had to talk about the anti-vaccine movement. I mean, damn, it was in the title, right?

I opened with the research that started it all. Then I went into exactly what happened that discredited the doctor and his research. What I didn’t do — make any conclusions or state any bias. I stated fact. Fact: doctor’s research says this. Fact: doctor was subsequently stripped of his medical credentials in the UK as a result of what they claim was falsified research. Fact: the doctor still contends nothing nefarious occurred. Fact: he still has a strong following.

[bctt tweet=”You can’t ignore the elephant in the room, even if you don’t want to include it. #freelancewriting #journalism” username=”LoriWidmer”]

Just don’t get emotionally tangled up in it. Stick with the facts. Let readers make their own conclusions. In this case, the article may have started with the background, but the bulk of it examined the implications to the insurance industry, and did not make any judgments.

That didn’t stop the pile-on of disparaging comments from the anti-vaccine followers, though I responded to none. It wasn’t the point of the article, and they were looking for a fight where no one had challenged them — they hadn’t read it, clearly. Just knee-jerk reactions and accusations flying over a trade magazine piece about insurance. I can make the judgment now, but I wouldn’t dare do so at the time.

The Other Side

Had the anti-vaccine article been one talking to parents instead of to insurance wonks, I’d have included the statements from those who have chosen not to vaccinate. And I may have included opinion from experts who had something to add on why vaccines might not be the best for kids. Why? Because understanding how someone gets to an opinion can help readers understand from a more informed position the entire topic.

Suppose you’re writing about sugar and heart disease. There’s a TON of information out there blaming heart disease on fat intake. Do you ignore that research, or do you include it and hold both stances up to scrutiny? Easy answer — both. Why was that decision easy? Because it doesn’t have the emotional entanglement that anti-vaccine beliefs or political opinions have. But even the emotional topics deserve the same kind of balance, don’t they?

The one thing you shouldn’t include in your articles:

Your Opinion

You don’t have to believe, but your job isn’t to believe anything. It’s to write and present an accurate overview (or deeper dive) without sticking your damned opinion in there. Bias is tough to weed out, but writers should be careful to remove their own bias before writing.

I had to when a now-defunct startup pub asked me to write a piece on pedophilia – from the pedophile’s perspective. I kept it all to email, knew no one’s name, and kept the questions to a minimum. Uncomfortable for me? You have no idea. I know I never want to take on a topic like that again, but I learned a lot about how to check my emotions temporarily. I focused on the larger goal, which was to prevent assaults on children by educating people on what motivates a pedophile to assault a child. (Ironically, the pedophiles were incredibly helpful in pointing out what parents and teachers should look for.)

You may be asked to handle some tough, emotionally charged topics. If you can’t suspend your opinion long enough to conduct objective interviews, you might not want to take those assignments.

There will be plenty of cases in which you will be faced with whether or not to include an opinion in your writing to establish a more balanced view. It may not always fit. But you should not shy away from opposing sides just because you want to present X without Y. If it fits, if you think it’s relevant and will encourage conversation, include it. If it’s not right, don’t force it.

A Note on Excluding Some Opinions

I’ve excluded opinions when it became obvious that the person talking to me had no damned clue what he was talking about. When it’s someone hitting you with their own personal conjecture without any foot in reality, you don’t have to go there. There have been quite a few cases when I realized the person on the other end of the phone was making it up, or had absolutely zero experience in what he was talking about (I say “he” because in every case, it was a man):

• There’s the guy who simply won’t shut up and let you ask a question (hence, the article he’s talking about doesn’t resemble your assignment at all)
• There’s the guy who says “They’re all wrong” without a drop of evidence to support his claim
• There’s the guy who insists he can tell you about X all day, but his resume says he’s expert is B
• There’s the guy who wants to be quoted, but does no more than quotes studies you’ve already found — and that he hasn’t written or been part of

Those people you don’t need to include. They’re not the right source for you.

Writers, how much do you think about balance when you’re writing?
What have you written that didn’t require a balanced approach? Why?
Do you think balance translates when you’re writing for a client other than an editor? In what ways can you inject balance while doing the job the way they want?