The case against journalistic balance

When campaigns complain about “fairness,” beware. Here’s what they’re really after.

The main event this campaign season, of course, is the matchup between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But the undercard has been almost as compelling a battle, as both parties and both candidates have vented their fury at the press over what they call “false equivalence,” “false balance” and unfairness in coverage. New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd bravely shook the beehive that is the “false balance” controversy in her Sunday column, addressing the catchphrase that Clinton supporters have been using to complain about their candidate’s treatment by the media. Their beef: The press “unfairly equat[es] a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s.” Spayd told the critics to shut up and take their lumps.

So far she has survived her hive-shaking largely unstung, although Jonathan Chait took a good swipe at her on Monday. Spayd holds that more harm will come from journalists being cowed by the prospect of getting a low score in somebody’s “balance” ledger than can come from directly comparing the demerits of Hillary and Donald. I agree, though had I been editing Spayd’s piece, I would have advised her to take the next step: Use the column to reject the chimera of journalistic balance altogether, and enjoin reporters to worry less about the nitpicking of partisans and more about whether they’re aggressively chasing good stories.