REAL Definitions

Bothsidesing

(4.0 -4.5 minute read)

When we demand journalism that's fair to facts, not just “fair” to politicians and the powerful, we're taking back the power to make informed decisions. That's the foundation of real democracy.

Dictionary Definition

Bothsidesing (also called "both-sidesism" or "false balance") is a journalistic practice where reporters present two opposing viewpoints as equally valid, credible, or important, regardless of the actual evidence supporting each side. The term comes from the phrase "both sides" that journalists often use when trying to appear balanced.

Media critics have tracked this practice since the 1990s, when cable news competition pushed outlets toward faster, simpler storytelling formats.

The Problem

Bothsidesing isn't really about fairness—it's about avoiding tough decisions and risking be called biased by the side that feels left out. When journalists automatically present "both sides" without checking if both sides deserve equal weight and avoid making editorial judgments, misinformation benefits from the confusion.

This creates a real problem for everyone trying to stay informed. When everything gets presented as "he said, she said," it becomes impossible to tell the difference between facts and spin. A reporter might cover climate science by giving equal time to 97% of scientists who agree it's real and 3% who don't—making it sound like a 50-50 debate when it's really not.

Research shows that misinformation isn't spread equally across the political spectrum. A 2025 study published in The International Journal of Press/Politics analyzed over 32 million tweets from parliamentarians in 26 countries and found that radical-right populist parties are significantly more likely to share misinformation than their mainstream or left-wing counterparts. When news outlets automatically present "both sides" as equally valid, they can end up giving false claims the same weight as established facts, which serves politicians who benefit from confusion.

The problem gets worse when the stakes are high. During elections, bothsidesing can make a candidate who lies constantly appear just as trustworthy as one who tells the truth, because reporters feel obligated to find "balance." During crises, it can make life-saving public health advice sound just as questionable as dangerous misinformation.

Most Americans actually want both accuracy AND fairness in their news. We want reporters to be fair to people, but more importantly we want them to be fair to facts.

What It Really Means

Real journalism is like being a good referee in a basketball game. A good ref calls fouls when they see them, even if it means one team gets more penalties than the other. They don't decide "Team A has five fouls, so I need to call five on Team B to keep it even." Bothsidesing is like a referee who's so worried about appearing fair that they refuse to call obvious fouls, or worse, they call fake fouls on the team that's playing clean just to "balance" the score. The game becomes chaos, and fans lose trust that the rules mean anything.

When journalists practice bothsidesing, they treat every issue like it has exactly two equally valid sides, when reality is usually more complicated. Sometimes one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong. Sometimes there are three or four different perspectives that all have merit. Sometimes there's actually broad agreement, but politicians are pretending there's a big fight.

The real problem isn't that journalists try to be fair—fairness is good. The problem is confusing "fairness to people" with "fairness to ideas." Some ideas deserve more respect than others, especially when they're backed by evidence, expertise, or basic human decency.

Why It Matters

When bothsidesing becomes the norm, we lose our ability to tell truth from lies as a society. Democracy depends on voters making informed decisions, but how can you make good decisions when every issue gets presented as an unsolvable mystery?

This creates what experts call "false polarization"—making issues seem more divided than they really are. Polls show Americans actually agree on a lot of things: we want clean air and water, good jobs, safe communities, and honest government. But bothsidesing makes it sound like we're hopelessly split on everything.

Over time, this breaks down trust in all institutions. When people can't tell the difference between real journalism and propaganda, they start assuming all news is fake. When every expert disagreement gets presented as a coin flip, people stop believing in expertise altogether.

This doesn't just hurt our politics—it hurts our ability to solve problems. Climate change, healthcare costs, infrastructure—these challenges need real solutions based on evidence. But if every solution sounds equally questionable, we end up stuck in endless debates while problems get worse.

REAL Perspective

To really enhance American lives, we need accurate information.  Real people need accurate information to make good decisions about their lives, their communities, and their votes. Bothsidesing denies us the facts we need. to make decisions.   

When journalists automatically present "both sides" without checking if both sides deserve equal weight, they're not serving regular people—they're serving politicians and the powerful who benefit from confusion.

Most Americans want journalists to be fair, but we also want them to do their homework and provide relevant context. We want them to talk to real experts, check claims against evidence, and tell us when someone is trying to mislead us. That's not bias—that's their job.

While it may not be comfortable, when we get clear, accurate information, we usually make good, if tough, decisions. We don't need everything dumbed down into artificial fights between "Team Red" and "Team Blue."

Understanding bothsidesing helps us become better news consumers. When we see a story that presents two sides as equally valid, we can ask ourselves: Do these sides really deserve equal weight? Is this based on evidence or just opinion? Are there other perspectives missing from this story?

Example

Look at vaccine coverage during COVID-19. Many news outlets practiced bothsidesing by giving equal time to medical experts and vaccine skeptics, presenting it as "the medical establishment says vaccines work, while concerned citizens raise questions about safety."

This made it sound like a 50-50 debate when the actual scientific evidence was overwhelming: vaccines were proven safe and effective through rigorous testing involving hundreds of thousands of people. The "concerned citizens" often had no medical training and were repeating debunked claims.

Better journalism would have reported: "Medical experts across the political spectrum, including Trump's and Biden's appointees, agree vaccines are safe and effective. A small but vocal minority continues to spread misinformation despite clear evidence." That's fair to facts and fair to people.

The cost of bothsidesing this issue was real: areas with lower vaccination rates had higher death rates, and many people died after believing misinformation that got equal treatment in the news.