60 Minutes is unbalanced
Because of the nearly comatose levels of thought devoted to the concept of balance in journalism, we've somehow inched our way into a bizzarro world where one dissenting voice actually must be presented next to an overwhelming majority in order to maintain balance.
60 Minutes roundly rejected that idiocy this week in its report on Global Warming. Good for them. According to Chris Mooney:
Brian Montopoli, of CBS's "Public Eye," talked with Scott Pelley recently about his "60 Minutes" global warming special. Pelley explains that he deliberately did not talk to those voices who remain skeptical of the science: "It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere who is not thought of as being eminent in the field and put him on television with these other guys to cast doubt on what they're saying."Amen.
Mooney actually believes they should feature the dissenting scientist but to contextualize his argument as a way to demonstrate just how outside the mainstream it really is.
His commenter Coby disagrees arguing that: "[to] try to contextualize it in a (deservedly) nagative way would come off as defensive and *still* give his opinions more exposure than the deserve." Thoughts? Is it a framing no-no to even dignify apocryphal science with airtime?
Update: See first comment below from theywillknowusbyourabsurdity for a note on the segment's nod to the skeptics... (TheIntersection)
--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).