Two sides to every story and multiple agendas
Posted: May 25, 2012 Filed under: change, media | Tags: media, news, vietnam 2 Comments »I wanted to share a couple of recent news articles I thought were excellent in terms of giving a really balanced picture of what is happening in Vietnam.
First off this piece from (Twitter’s very own) Mike Ives. Government’s seizing land is always going to be an emotive subject but I’ve bemoaned, for some time now, a lack of explanation from the state. That’s the problem with a state controlled media, sometimes it’s easier to limit coverage than to actually explain. I can’t begin to imagine how much effort it must have taken to bring absolute balance to this piece.
Along the same lines this fantastic piece by Robert Kaplan in The Atlantic offers an incredibly exhaustive overview of modern Vietnam and its diplomatic role in the region. Reading both pieces side by side it feels like the balancing act required to run this country is almost impossible to comprehend.
What worked best about both is that they were written with obviously an incredible amount of research and valued facts rather than just targetting the usual bogeymen. In contrast, a much briefer example perhaps, but the crow-barred in reference to communist Vietnam in this report of a horrific accident just seemed odd and it’s hard to know what it’s suggesting.
Balance doesn’t make one side right or the other side wrong. Balance doesn’t make the worst excesses forgivable. But balance does give us the chance to make our own minds up. Just as there two sides to every story, there are also various agendas.
My sense is that true “balance” is impossible. Everyone brings their own opinion to the table. Sometimes bias can be very subtle, such as the choice of words or what to include or omit.
I think it’s better to give up the fiction of journalistic impartiality and instead just state what side of the fence someone is on. That’s probably not happening. I’d settle for stating both sides of an issue.
I think there is an understanding now that most media has an agenda. I think that comes from social media because people have been able to highlight that agenda and question both spin and accuracy. In addition we now have so much info to wade through that we routinely ask ourselves how credible the source is.
But there’s two types of balance. There is balance in terms of beliefs, agenda, ideology etc and there’s also balance in giving both sides some space to have their say (even if you might have to work for it). That’s what those two pieces do. The world is changing too fast to just use lazy labels and stick with them, regardless of what the reality is.