The Logic of Balance: The Sides of Journalism’s Most Pressing Issue

Credit: Pexels.com

When an individual makes a decision, they weigh out two sides. Pros and cons. Taking this information into consideration, they make an informed decision. Ideally, they would treat the information from both sides equally and move forward from there. But what if the information from one side is completely false? And could harm themselves and the people around them in the process?

Edward Bernsays lays out a concept known as “Logic of Balance” is his 1928 book Propaganda. He states the following:

“The press should not simply be impartial. The press ought to have a particular bias: an enlightened bias. The press ought to be helping us to know enough to protect our rights, to know enough to protect our freedoms; it has that republican function. Its purpose is not to work as an institutional gatekeeper defining what is appropriate for our consideration and what is not. Its purpose is not to observe a notion of “balance,” blindly giving equal time to both a right and a left, even if the right should happen to be advancing a patently irrational, or even destructive, program.

This logic of balance, however, suits the advertisers and the media industries themselves. According to the logic of balance, creationism is just as respectable as natural selection. If powerful people believe that abstinence-based sex education is a good idea, the press will give equal weight to that view under a logic of balance, even though there is not a single study that supports the idea.”

Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928

This concept is at the forefront of one of the most pressing issues in media, particularly in the world of journalism. Accusations of a biased press have been around for a very long time, but increased significantly with the Trump Administration. Because of this, news organizations found themselves under scrutiny, and either doubled down with criticism or veered away to being more neutral. In order to understand how Logic of Balance can be an ethical dilemma, one needs to understand why this is built in and how it should be addressed.

When journalists cover a story, they will interview multiple people with different viewpoints and opinions on the topic. Especially in classrooms, it’s generally taught that you have to get both sides of a story and interview subjects with opposing perspectives. That comes from the simple thought that if you only get one side of the story, not only are you not getting the full story, but your reporting is going to be biased since you didn’t include the opposing viewpoint. This same point comes up in media research where the sources and research lean too much to one side. Dan Rather, who anchored CBS Evening News for 24 years, raises good points on how objectivity affects reporting.

One of the main points he brings up is there’s a point where a journalist sees something which doesn’t fit with their conscious, it’s a test of objectivity and how far it goes. The Logic of Balance and objectivity go hand in hand, but no journalist is 100% objective, according to Rather.

Newsrooms also have to be careful with their reporting for legal reasons. If a party believes their reputation was harmed by an news story which puts them in a bad light, they can sue the news organization for libel. Defamation lawsuits are taken seriously by news organizations, and they have to make sure that the information is true. As well, the Equal Time Rule is applied for broadcast stations by the FCC.

These reasons lead to The Logic of Balance, and in theory, it holds good reasoning for the sake of objectivity and getting the full picture of the story. However, it starts to become a problem when one side has misinformation they believe to be true, and poses a danger to public safety, and the news organization decides to include that information even though it isn’t true. When the public hears this information, they normalize and equate it to the same level as verified information.

Today, it’s commonly known as “bothsidesing” which could be considered another form of Bernay’s Logic of Balance. News organizations have more recently been called out on this, with CBS coming under criticism for applying this practice on reporting regarding the healthcare of transgender people. The New York Times has been called out for this numerous times, especially in relation to the Trump Impeachment. Even smaller, regionally-based publications such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are being sued for racial discrimination and illegal retaliation in regards to banning Alexis Johnson from reporting on the Black Lives Matter movement.

The main counter journalists are taught for false information is fact checking statements and pointing out which ones are false. It’s that nuanced research which gives quotes context and detail. However, that can only go so far when viewers gravitate towards the main quotes. Applying Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm, humans are storytellers and we gravitate towards narrative thought rather than rational. Those statements are what we look for, and what we base our decisions off of. Fact-checking to give context is important, it’s just not always what the consumers are looking at.

Credit: The Washington Post

The Logic of Balance and subsequently “bothsidesing” are affecting coverage of critical events such as the insurrection and attack on the Capitol on January 6th. The Salon has argued this isn’t journalism, but instead Republican Propaganda;

“When journalists cannot honestly report what is happening, when they normalize the ongoing destruction of democracy, they become complicit in it. When their posture of balance makes the world more illegible, so that democratic self-governance becomes all but impossible, they’re no longer journalists. They have become propagandists, and cannot be allowed to define the standards of a profession they no longer practice.”

Paul Rosenberg, Salon, 2021

The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel says the main element is to “provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing”, with “first obligation to the truth”, “first loyalty to citizens,”,”have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience”, and “serve as a monitor of power.” All of that is taken away the moment the power structure is flipped and propagandists are controlling how the news is covered. And with those who participated in the insurrection now running for public office, it’s important for journalists to stop using The Logic of Balance and cover stories as they actually are in order to save American democracy.

The main question moving forward is how do journalists and newsrooms address these issues and change their coverage. Journalists should absolutely talk to their editors, the lawyers, and the ethics committee if there is any reason to believe misinformation through “bothsidesing” is in their reporting. And within news organizations, there needs to be standard procedures. But the best policy is the one recommended by Letrell Crittenden, who leads the Communications Department at Thomas Jefferson University, in this interview in The Nexus addressing what traditional journalism can do:

“It’s simple. Engage your community, and be accountable to your community. News has operated too long in an extractive manner, in which they go into traditionally marginalized communities, take out specific narratives that are often based on stereotypes, and only return when they want more of the same. This is why many communities do not trust legacy media. Newsrooms should understand they operate within a communication ecosystem. And to be a healthy member of an ecosystem, you need to make sure all of the needs of every segment of your community is served. This requires getting to know your community on an authentic level, relaying a diverse set of narratives about a community, and being responsive and making corrections when your work does harm. But in order to do so, newsrooms must first recognize there is a problem. Hopefully, the events of 2020 have shown enough newsrooms that there is indeed a problem and that change is needed to end systemic racial practices by news organizations.”

Journalism’s first loyalty is to its citizens and the community it serves. Making sure the reporting reflects that simple concept is only the first steps of telling stories which reflect the reality of the world every journalist and citizen is in to bring safety and truth back to the community.

Do They Align With My Political Stance or Do They Just Have a Cute Dog?

How much of our voting choices are made strictly on the basis of public policy? Ironically, public policy seems like it takes a back seat in our decision-making when we’re inundated with images of the “perfect” person and information that serves our confirmation bias.

MAGA Hats Off to Donald Trump

In this June 1, 2016, file photo, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wears his “Make America Great Again” hat at a rally in Sacramento, Calif.

Politics, politics, and more politics. This country is run by politicians and their beliefs. How do they run the world you may ask? They run the world by convincing people like us to put them into a position of power. A tool used by most, if not all, politicians is propaganda. Although most citizens of America would like to say they are not influenced by political propaganda, they most likely are influenced. Both sides of the political world have propaganda and some are dramatized, some are factual, and some are an emotional appeal. The truth is that most people can not differentiate the intent behind a political advertisement because they are too often stuck in their own opinion. If a Republican-Trump Supporter were to watch a video produced by Donald J. Trump or his political party they are less likely to pick apart the propaganda. That being said, it applies to the Democratic-Biden Supporters too. Although all are influenced by political propaganda, about half of America was surprised by the effectiveness of one particular political candidate’s propaganda, Donald J. Trump.

The 45th president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump is not one of the most loved presidents on the list. The 2016 elections caused massive controversy because a non-politician was running for president of the United States. This at the time was almost unheard of and rather untraditional. In order to achieve his goals, he did have to persuade the citizens of the United States of America that he was capable and was going to do everything he possibly could for America. All political beliefs aside, he did create propaganda that was effective and ran a good campaign. He received enough support from the United States of America to become the president even though he had no political background. His lack of political expertise is something he capitalized on rather than hiding from it. He used a campaign that advertised him as just another person or an ordinary person. He often stated he was a businessman and that his expertise in business made him capable. Edward Bernays states, “American business first learned from politics the methods of appealing to the broad public. But it continually improved those methods in the course of its competitive struggle, while politics clung to the old formulas.” Maybe the people thought his business skills were better than those of current politicians. This is a tactic often used by politicians and for advertisements. It’s the same thing as a paid actor making a testimonial about a product. They are selling the idea of normalcy and try to be relatable to the target audience.

Donald Trump used his lack of experience to claim he was just like the rest of us. He was just a businessman who wanted America to be great. Like or dislike the man, it was a smart approach for his campaign. This campaign includes his infamous slogan, “Make America Great Again”, which is another tactic used in advertising that works in propaganda. A catchy slogan can increase the memory and attention of the target audience and cause them to think of the product. In this case, the product is Donald Trump and his campaign. 

Example 1: Make America Great Again 2016

Example 2: Make America Great Again 2016

His slogan insinuates that Donald Trump is going to return the United States of America to its glory days. Although some groups of race and sex may disagree with the United States being glorious beforehand. In reality, most groups other than white heterosexual males were treated unfairly or unjustly prior to current times. Even with the reality of America never being truly great it sparked something in half of the United States of America. Many people felt that we needed a drastic change in order to make America “great again”. MAGA was not the only thing Donald Trump pushed strongly in the 2016 election.

Example 1: Donald Trump’s Anti-Immigration Propaganda

One of Trump’s stances was to build a wall to stop illegal immigration into the United States. Donald often used fear tactics to build support for his stance. In the image above you can see a political advertising campaign or otherwise known as propaganda. Two of the images involve a claim of a national emergency. He urges the audience to pay attention and tries to instill the idea of urgency to the audience. The middle image says, “America’s Safety Is At Risk” and portrays a message of fear. He wants citizens to be afraid, to want to elect him to save them. This is not something new in the world of political propaganda and has been used in the past. Below this paragraph is another example of his anti-immigration propaganda. In large words, it says, “Stop Illegal Immigration” and shows a photo of Mexican immigrants rushing the wall. The image almost looks like a war scene and the black and white photo makes it even more dramatic. It almost looks like masses of people are charging the United States border and trying to cross. Most cases of immigration are not as intense as the image pictured in the advertisement. There is not a full war on the border leading into America. He did achieve his goal of convincing his supporters that the border was a concern.

Example 2: Donald Trump’s Anti-immigration Propaganda

Donald J Trump may not be one of the most liked presidents of the United States of America but, he did provide effective propaganda. He is one of the first presidents to break traditional routes of candidacy and win over half of the country. Thanks to his political campaign, he achieved the title of president.

Comparing and Contrasting Politicians to Influencers

The definitions of influencer and politician differ drastically. Influencers are hired to help detail products and services usually in exchange for currency or other rewards, while politicians hold an office and are “experienced people in the art and science of government” according to Merriam Webster (Merriam-Webster, 2021). Influencers should not be mutually exclusive and rarely should intersect, but is that the case today? Not so fast!

The rise of influencers has continued with the expansion of the internet, social media, and the accessibility and emphasis for most people to have a smart phone. Having easier access to the internet, social media, and a smart phone has created additional scenarios and additional times for people to be influenced by one another. Thinking back to how things used to be even 20 to 30 years ago, people did not interact with one another as often as they do today.

Once people did not see each other in person, there was a good chance they did not talk to them till the next day or just through a phone call between a few people. Now, our world is incredibly connected and access to so much information and various others conversations are accessible by just a few clicks of some buttons. But, what does this have to do with persuasion and propaganda anyways?

Well, it has just about everything to do with persuasion and propaganda, in fact. Due to the digital and information age, influencers have more mediums than ever to influence people, and the same goes for politicians. According to the Pew Research Center, it was estimated earlier in 2021 that about seven in 10 American citizens (72 percent to be exact) have a social media account of some sort (Pew Research Center, 2021).

Pages: 1 2

Politicians as Influencers

There should be no shred of doubt that the way elections and campaigns are run nowadays has changed a ton over the past 50 years, and even in the last 15 years. With the rise of social media, almost every political candidate, in office or not, has a social media page, most famously on Twitter, but a vast majority also have Instagram’s and Facebook pages. Politicians and influencers are closer in theory than ever, using the same kind of methods in order to sell us something. It could be a makeup brush set, a policy, an under-eye cream, or a candidate for the next POTUS.

But what is an influencer? And what is it regarding politics? “An influencer is a person or organization that has the power to change things or peoples’ minds, or to make things happen. The impact of an influencer is recognizable and significant, and includes changes in behavior or opinion in others. This power to influence the state of things, and people, can derive from such thing as fame, legacy, social presence, charisma, rhetorical skill, or even moral status. It is not limited to wealth, or the ability to pay to make things happen.”

By that definition, all modern-day politicians would be considered influencers. Not only do they have the power, and the finances, to change the way people think, but they are also beginning to do it like Gen-Z’s social media influencers. For example, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg partnered with some Instagram accounts in order to make memes as content to promote his candidacy. Why such a push for social media? Why such a push for politicians to be seen as micro-influencers? The answer is simple: to reach younger audiences.

Whether you like it or not, this upcoming generation is going to be responsible for the voting, and the way the country is run rather soon. We are graduating college, getting jobs, learning about the real world first-hand, and making opinions on politics. So, with that in mind, it is increasingly important to make sure we are being spoken to on the platforms in which we use the most. Politicians would stick to television interviews, televised speeches, newspaper articles and more of that nature to campaign. But, with the way we receive our news changing, they need to adapt to the times.

The chart provided below states that Gen-Z gets most of their news and news-related information from social sites, showing a whopping 43% use it daily (they used 261 respondents within the ages of 19-24). The percentages for if they never use things like newspapers are not below 32%, showing that most of them never get the news from newspaper or other “traditional” sources. If you are or plan on becoming a politician, you may want to learn everything you can able social media platforms.

Characteristic	Daily	A few times per week	Once per week	A few times per month	Once per month	Less than once per month	Never
Social news	43%	15%	14%	6%	5%	5%	12%
Online-only news sites	10%	16%	7%	19%	5%	12%	32%
Radio	9%	13%	9%	14%	7%	12%	35%
Cable news networks	8%	12%	11%	14%	4%	11%	41%
Network news	8%	13%	9%	9%	4%	14%	42%
Newspapers	5%	6%	6%	7%	3%	16%	57%
Podcasts	3%	8%	9%	9%	8%	14%	51%

Although they are politicians trying to make a living, they are most definitely trying to also put on a show for their supporters. Those in favor of a certain politician usually finds themselves liking them more, aside from a few exceptions. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attended the Met Gala, a huge social event, wearing a dress that said, “Tax the Rich.” Although Democrats, especially young ones, love AOC and everything she stands for, they were unimpressed with her ability to wear a dress stating their shared opinion at a social event where a ticket costs $35,000. She received “a chorus of dissatisfaction from progressives and self-described socialists disappointed by a gesture they said caricatured a progressive cause and underscored their sense that she is not maximizing her ability to fight for working people from Congress.”

They love nothing more than to create controversy with their followers. Donald Trump became such a joke on Twitter, especially during campaigning and his actual presidency, they, being his social media team, actually had to take away his privileges for tweeting. He was putting on quit the show for his followers and supporters, so much so that most of what he said was taken far too out of context with little to no evidence to back it up. His Twitter account was banned from the site.

Influencers and politicians are also the same in the sense that they get paid to push the agenda of a brand or company. Influencers are given items to test on camera, stating whether they liked it or not, and then told to post them to their social media accounts for their billions of followers to see. They use propaganda, or “systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions,” in order to meet their goals. Influencers do this in a way that seems much less harmful, as they are just trying to gain more followers or sell a product. Politicians use it to win, which can be a little scary. Changing and molding the minds of the American people is something we are used to, though it was much harder to do over television or newspaper. The access to information we have is alarming; we can learn anything we want to know about a politician within seconds of a Google search. What is incredibly alarming is the levels of political manipulation going on.

“New research by the Oxford Internet Institute has found that social media manipulation is getting worse, with rising numbers of governments and political parties making cynical use of social media algorithms, automation and big data to manipulate public opinion at scale — with hugely worrying implications for democracy.” The spreading of fakes news and other toxic narratives, whether it be about another candidate, a policy, a political party or, in some cases, an entire country.

Influencers typically use their platform for good, in other words trying to spread information about things they personally use themselves or about companies and businesses to stay away from. They warn about side effects or manipulative behaviors when doing business with some of these brands. Politicians are using social media in the most negative form of propaganda. They are turning us against one another. The number of times Donald Trump slandered another person or politician or entire company for saying something he thought was fake news are endless, not to say he was the only person to ever do so. Doing our own research has become more important than ever.

Best practices in PR and propaganda

There are four major approaches to the way that public relations are boundary spanner, advocate, relationship manager and propagandist. Each of them can play a large role in communication and can be used in propaganda. As much as this might be odd for some to hear there is a certain amount of ethics involved in the whole process of public relations. Other such surprising news would be that lawyers are not in fact blood suckling vampires. Joking aside there actually is a good amount of safety mechanisms that are meant to be employed when people are engaging with public relations. We have to not only acknowledge the safety mechanisms of the various approaches, but actually implement them when using these approaches.

Starting with the boundary spanner they can best be understood as the most persuasive one of the four approaches that we will be talking about leading it to being slightly more manipulative than the other four. Because of the inherent manipulative nature associated with persuasion the process is now being phased out for the more favorable negotiation. By transferring the way in which we conduct the use of this approach we are modernizing it for the time to a certain extent. Without this evolution of how we engage in this approach it would be abandoned due it being to outdated. This approach much be even handed like a mediator in a divorce you are not on either person’s side you are merely seeking an amicable end to their martial ties to one another as opposed to prolonged arguing.

For those who implement this approach to public relations they will typically have a harder time dealing with the ethics of public relations. The method is only considered ethical when implemented with a symmetrical approach it must be used as fair and balanced as it possible can be. Because of this “it is difficult, if not impossible, to practice public relations in a way that is ethical and socially responsible using an asymmetrical model” (Grunig and White, 1992, p. 175). The ethics of this approach much like those that will follow are non-negotiable if you are planning to responsibly use them.

The approach used by an advocate is quiet different than that of the boundary spanner almost standing in opposition to it in some respects. It is more asymmetric and persuasive than the boundary spanner making it a somewhat riskier choice for the public relations novice. What you are trying to do is get others to do what you want without forcing them to do so directly. The marketplace of ideas is what we like to think about as the equitable way of conducting business. This is no different when it comes to public relations and the propaganda that it is associated with you trying to create ideas that the majority of people will want to agree with. When thinking of the most infamous of advocates that comes to mind for most people it will be an attorney when they hear the word it will be literally that of an advocate. This isn’t wrong after all there is a saying about playing the devils advocate in an argument you are taking an asymmetrical opposition to everyone else’s opinion on the given topic.

The relationship manager approach might sound like a different name for a marriage counselor, but it’s actually isn’t that far off from what it actually does. The goal is to help create connections between different groups allowing for better communication between them. Ethically it is new and unexplored territory since there isn’t much research into communication between people. Lack of understanding in general for thus approach can be disastrous if the person implementing this approach doesn’t do their do diligence in trying to connect the different groups of people, or organizations that have requested the help of the relationship manager.

As a propagandist there is little to no attempt at trying to hide what this approaches goal is in connection to public relations since it is literally propaganda. With that being said there is still a difference between persuasion and propaganda even though to some people the two might as well be the same word being easily interchangeable with one another. There are ethical issues with the use of this method since the approach is not concerned with making things right in terms of releasing information to the public. Compared to the other more ethical approaches this approach is not as well respected making it a bit less liked amoung those in the feild.

A More Difficult Public

In chapter 5 of Edward Bernays book “History is a Weapon”, he talks about how business and the public have a closer relationship because they work together to make the lives of both sides more equitable. He calls it a “partnership” between the two. In reality, the world changed where big business could not sweep its bad practices under the rug anymore due to easy access to information with News papers, invention of television, and the most current powerhouse of free information, the internet. Now that all of every companies business is out there for all of the world to see, it is harder for these businesses to do thing that are beneficial to the company but harmful to the public in any way. It also meant that the public view actually matters in the eyes of these large companies and manufactures.

Bernays Says – “Even in a basic sense, business is becoming dependent on public opinion. With the increasing volume and wider diffusion of wealth in America, thousands of persons now invest in industrial stocks. New stock or bond flotations, upon which an expanding business must depend for its success, can be effected only if the concern has understood how to gain the confidence and good will of the general public. Business must express itself and its entire corporate existence so that the public will understand and accept it. It must dramatize its personality and interpret its objectives in every particular in which it comes into contact with the community (or the nation) of which it is a part”.

We live in a different time where the upcoming generations are becoming more and more educated. Whether that is on social or economical matters. Our younger generations have more educational degrees than any other generation by far. They also have devices at hand that can research any topic you can think of in a blink of an eye. According to the Pew Research Center, “Among Millennials, around four-in-ten (39%) of those ages 25 to 37 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with just 15% of the Silent Generation, roughly a quarter of Baby Boomers and about three-in-ten Gen Xers (29%) when they were the same age”. With that being said, it is much harder for big corporations to hide things from the public.

Companies who do the best, are the ones who are viewed positively by the public. According to an article on Forbes.com by Peter Georgescu “It recently released studies that demonstrate how the Just 100—the hundred most ethical and enlightened companies in the nation — consistently outperform their industry competitors continuously, by one to four percentage points”. And if a company is part of the “Just 100”, it is a big deal because you are recognized directly by the public. They poll more than 50,000 Americans to rate certain aspects of the company to see how “just” it is. Because of the internet and easy access to information, the public is much harder to please than it was before the internet was invented. Companies could easily hide what they did not want the public to see. Now if something unthinkable happens due to the neglect of a company, the public will not forgive them as easily and the company could go through some hard times, or in worse scenarios, go out of business. An example of a company having a negative view on them would be when BP had the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

After watching this video about the BP oils spill, it really paints a picture of how pad public relations and false information damages a companies reputation. To this day you will see BP releasing ads claiming to be an environmentally friendly company when in reality, things like this keep occurring. They are trying to re-establish a good public view with public relation campaigns which in reality is just propaganda. As you can see in this video, the public is not buying it because we are more educated and know how to access information that can be fact checked. the Public is not so easily tricked anymore and being a more ethical based company can only be beneficial for the future of the companies growth and well-being.

Corporations Self Interest Used as Form of Propaganda

“The leaders who lend their authority to any propaganda campaign will do so only if it can be made to touch their own interests. There must be a disinterested aspect of the propagandist’s activities. In other words, it is one of the functions of the public relations counsel to discover at what points his client’s interests coincide with those of other individuals or groups,” (Bernays, 1928).

This quote from Edward Bernays in Chapter 5 of History is a Weapon relates not to just the self-interest of people at the individual level, but also to the self-interest of groups and organizations filled with thousands of people. To act or even not to act on something is all due to personal interest or the interest of a group.

Abraham Maslow in the 1940’s introduced a Hierarchy of Needs, which understandably so, show how people fulfill their self interest level by level. The level of needs from top to bottom are physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. While Maslow identifies them as needs, the phrases could be coined as levels of self-interest (Simply Psychology, 2021).

Pages: 1 2

Our Justifications Don’t Always Justify

Motivation has many faces in humans as we have many different desires. The most basic reasoning we can give to ourselves is wanting. In terms of persuasion, we want to change the thoughts, behavior, feelings, actions, etc. of others. Motivation is the compelling stimulus that leads us to the process of persuasion. There is always some sort of end goal when persuading. When companies have some sort of goal they want to reach, they often use persuasion or propaganda in persuasion to meet that goal. It is said that there are five justifications for persuasion: 1) Self-interest; 2) Enlightenment; 3) Enlightened self-interest; 4) Social responsibility; 5) Kingdom of ends.

The Preacher of Death

Reading the stories of former cult members can sound straight out of a terrifying fiction novel. How could anyone blindly follow someone who claims to be the messiah? On the list of red flag behavior in people, I feel that must be near the top of the list.

In 1993, the government raided Mount Carmel Center, the religious compound of the Branch Davidians, near Waco, Texas. A gun battle ensued, killing four agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and 6 Davidians. A cease-fire was arranged and thus began the 51-day standoff that would take over news channels and newspapers all around the world. The siege ended on April 19, 1993, after fires were set inside the walls and the compound went up in flames, killing 75 people.

Flames engulfing the Branch Davidian compound. Image from Britannica.com