On the very idea of balance

The media is often keen to expouse it's balance and fairness. One of the ways it does this is to present 'both sides of the story'. These seems fair enough on the face of it. If all is opinion and you have someone arguing for X, then if you wish to preserve some sense of fairness and 'objectivity' then you must have someone on your show who stands for (Not-X).

However, chances are you'll only ever see this when it comes to left leaning subjects or subjects that the right contest. Other 'opinions' are meant to be taken one side only. If the subject is global warming - there'll be someone 'to balance things up' who is a sceptic and stands in defiance of every scientist on the planet, near enough. If there is a debate on the minimum wage, there will be some gonk from the bosses' association dishing out the gargle as to why it's not a good idea - similarly for the 42 days. It's a duff idea but there will be 'two' sides presented and the show will end in a paralysis of indecision and vagueness. Even slavery has its apolgists these days and in the name of objectivity must have their rancid views exposed to the nation. There will be no conclusion reached by the makers, who daren't take sides for fear of any 'bias'.

Things are different when it comes to other subjects. The official line is strictly followed in all areas of economics, the war on terror and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for example. There will be nobody there to argue that economic growth per se might not be a good thing, that there may be other ways to run the economic show or that the economy's booms are bound up with its busts - there are no programs that give the 'other' side to the Iraq war a fair hearing (i.e. the real side that would say it was about oil, Isreal and military bases) or a view that would question any aspect of 9/11 or 7/7. Here there is only ever one side allowed.

Philosophically at least this view has the merit of not falling into the epistemological relativist trap - A: I believe that there are two sides to every story. B: So there aren't two sides to every story. A: Eh? No I said there are two sides. B: In a way I am agreeing with you. Your story is there are two sides to every story. A: Hmmm B: Well, if your story is true, then the other side to your story is that - there is only one side to every story. Maybe more I guess, but just one, let's not be greedy. A: Well ok, one story for you one for me. B: That's your story. A: No you said it was yours. B: You relativist A: You totalitarian.....[fall to fighting]