Also known as [False balance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance): > a [media bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias "Media bias") in which [journalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalists "Journalists") present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence "Evidence") supports. Journalists may present evidence and [arguments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments "Arguments") out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. [[What makes a bad argument]]: > I'd describe bothsidesism as a cousin of [[whataboutism]]. Wikipedia defines it as "a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports." An example might be presenting a debate about human-caused climate change and giving equal air time to two sides: Humans are causing climate change vs. humans aren't causing climate change. > Given that the scientific consensus on climate change is robust, arranging an argument this way would lend credence to the idea that scientists (or people in general) are evenly divided on the issue, even though they aren't. ## see also - [[Rhetorical tricks]] - [[Differential coverage can reflect real-world patterns rather than ideological bias]] #rhetoric #debate #misinfo #politics #ethics