Is "balanced" always "fair"?

            As we discussed balance during the last class, I was intrigued by Dr. Edwards’ idea of the difference between “balanced” and “fair”.  It is “fair” to our readers to be unconditionally balanced in reporting?  Is it fair to report two perspectives on a hot-button issue that affects the health of our readers?  I really do not think that it is fair to the readers to represent the side of research that has not been supported by numerous studies.  What if we were to represent Freud’s viewpoints along with newer, more supported research about interpersonal interaction?  The problem with representing these “fringe” or outdated theories as truth is that it presents the risk that individuals with limited science knowledge will accept that fringe perspective as equally valid to the perspective that has been supported by countless studies. 

            To illustrate the dangers or overvaluing these fringe beliefs, I would like to present a hypothetical situation.  Let’s take a man who finished high school but has not attended an undergraduate institution (not to say that individuals who choose not to get a bachelor’s degree are inferior, but, depending upon their interests and occupation, they may have fewer opportunities to access scientific material or dialogue).  Let’s say that he has a child who is experiencing gastrointestinal distress.  He goes to his trusty computer and types in “stomach problems and children”.  And then, let’s say he comes across an article that says his child might have a mild case of food poisoning, or his child could have the beginning stages of autism.  Both of these causes are linked to gastrointestinal distress, but the claims of gastrointestinal distress being linked to autism are highly debatable.  If this possibility were presented with no caveat, this father might immediately schedule long and expensive tests with a pediatric specialist, which could break the bank if not covered by insurance. 

            As science writers, we need to be careful how we’re representing the information.  It’s okay to mention the “other side” of an issue, particularly if the other side has some credence.  For example, it would be completely irresponsible to represent intelligence as completely genetically heritable (nature) without bringing up the environmental factors that contribute to the development of intelligence (nurture).  When faced with a situation like this, science writers should certainly represent the other view.  However, when representing the other view would confuse readers or cloud their understanding of the issue, one must tread very carefully.  A balanced approach is not always fair to the reader, and when science writers are aware that reporting the other side of their issue may jeopardize their obligation to be fair to their readers, they must write in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the readers.  It is important to still challenge the reader and inspire him or her to think deeply, but we also need to be aware that treating all views equally is irresponsible and can leave the reader more confused than when he or she started the piece.