Fair and IMbalanced: In the spirit of fairness, I would like my posterity to be aware of this...

What is fair? MUST things be balanced?

The term "fair" can mean many things to many people. In baseball, a ball struck by a bat is foul or fair. A fair raffle would be based on drawing tickets completely at random. Both of these examples are measurable and certifiable.

On the other hand, the definition of a fair day will vary based upon personal experience. In the game of golf, less talented players are given a handicap to make the game fair. In public education, there is a movement to "level the playing field" in order to foster a fair society. In these examples, fairness is subjective.

Children will claim, "That's not fair!" when given directives by an adult. Often, this is because they are not aware of the broader knowledge base from which the adult is operating.

So, what does it mean when the news media claims to be fair? To me, "fair" in this context should mean "based in truth, with a commitment to pursue truth beyond the limits of political correctness and popular ratings".

"Balanced." Hmm... I think of Lady Justice holding her scale. I think of me sitting on one end of a teeter-totter in kindergarten, facing a friend at the opposite end. By dangling our legs carefully forward or back we were able to maintain the board parallel to the ground. Sometimes I would face two friends or more. If I leaned backward, and they sat closer to the center, or fulcrum, we could achieve balance.

I do NOT think of the Fairness Doctrine, which insists that every point of view should get equal exposure - hence, balancing the coverage.

I do NOT think that thirty or sixty minutes of network news should be bundled so that we have neatly distributed, predictable coverage that balances the time available and still leaves time for commercials. (How is it possible that the major rival networks cover nearly the same stories in nearly the same order day after day?)

In nature and in world events, balance is a dynamic principle, involving random and disproportionate as well as repeating events that perpetuate the existence of our planet and its inhabitants. I don't think that balancing coverage of events is a desirable characteristic of journalism. To attempt to make it so is to arbitrarily move the events closer to, or further away from the fulcrum; an even more contemptible practice is to leave them off the teeter-totter entirely, in order to project the illusion of having balanced coverage.

I think that true principles should get more coverage than false ones. I think that the good guys should get more exposure than the bad guys. (I think obscurity is what criminals deserve, except when public safety is an issue.) I think the different networks should develop original and unique formats for collection and dissemination of news, so that we can vary our viewing and try to more fairly put things in balance for ourselves.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

In the spirit of fairness, I would like my posterity to be aware of this...

I was born into the world at a time when there were still living Civil War survivors, and when a segregated army had just returned from World War II. While I was in my carefree youth, the issues of racism and patriotism were being contested on the streets of America and the jungles of Vietnam. In many ways, "the War(s) still ain't over for Mama," even in 2010. I don't want you to be wondering, "What's all the fuss about?" when it comes to civil rights and loving your neighbor. You are a chosen generation. Pray for guidance. Sort it out. Be active.