Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevecalifornia | Hacker News Reader

Both of this article's authors are activists. They aren't journalists-- they are activists.

Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.

> Of course you will never get to the truth of anything if you don't have both sides of a topic in the same room.

Fair enough, in this case, but the both-sides-ism is responsible for some horrible stuff, from climate change denial to anti-vax.

It is absolutely a fallacy that you always need "both sides of a topic" to be reported / given a platform.

If you have two sides at the table, then the 'correct' side should be able to articulate how their point is correct.

Here is where I am coming from: NPR used to have a great show (Diane Rehm) where she would get both sides of a hot topic and through great moderation allow both to speak and then to debate the issues. More times than I could count the first person would speak and I would think "Wow, this person has a rock solid argument" and then the second person would speak and tear it all down. I would sit there stunned thinking "I would have been so mis-informed if I had only heard the first person in a vacuum."

When something is still an active topic, it's extremely important to have all the sides at the table.

There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table. Most issues are not simple binary decisions and there are many more sides than just two. Even if a binary decision is forced (e.g. yes-or-no vote on legislation), both supporters and detractors will be heterogeneous groups, with everyone having their own reasons for their stance. So if you get representatives from "both sides" to debate, they might both share the same incorrect view, just disagreeing on whether that's a good thing or a bad one.

I don't think that's a problem journalism can easily solve.

> There's an important difference between having all sides at the table and having two sides at the table.

> I don't think [more-than-two-sides]'s a problem journalism can easily solve.

Very true, but having only one side at the table is even worse.

We must give the flat-earthers the same exact airtime, down to the minute. Because reasons.

It isn't a fallacy, and there is plenty of good discussion that can be had by questioning our proposed response to climate change, or COVID vaccinations.

The mistake is calling the extremist view points "the other side". People who think the government is using vaccinations to control the population using microchips are not the other side and should not get a serious platform. People who demand evidence that a vaccine developed in a rush during a pandemic is safe probably should.

You're saying there are more than two sides. IOW, you appear to agree that it is a fallacy.

There's a reason this is "fair enough, in this case." The headline and article are both highly sensationalized and engage in highly dubious reasoning to make baseless accusations. The authors clearly have an axe to grind and it's strongly influencing their output in this article.

So this article is the anti-vaccination side of your "both-sides-ism," concept. And according to you, that's "some horrible stuff."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com