Should reporters be required to get both sides of the story?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

So lately there's been a controversy over a misunderstanding wherein both a black guy and white girl both thought the same bicycle was theirs, causing the latter to believe she was being stolen from when the former went to retrieve what he honestly thought was his. Everyone assumed the white girl was "weaponizing her tears", until a literal receipt showed she had good reason to believe the bicycle was hers.

I cite Dr. Richey not to accuse him of slander or anything like that; on the contrary, him being so apologetic about getting it wrong is a microcosm of the devotion to honesty that keeps my attention on shows like his however drastically different his worldview may be from mine.

But what would have happened if she had lost the receipt? Would the rest of the world have continued to associate that white girl's face with "taking something that isn't hers and weaponizing her tears"? We shouldn't need a receipt to prevent someone's reputation from being wrongfully soiled forever. We should be expected to take both sides of the story before taking action, such that people have a fair chance to explain themselves. We should make this the new standard so something like this doesn't happen again.

If free speech doesn't cover libel or slander, I'm not sure why it covers journalism that fails to get both sides of the story before commenting on it. Anyone who has worked at a youth centre knows that if you don't promise to always get both sides of any story before taking action, you don't get the job, period. And make no mistake, your supervisor will hold you to that promise. So why is journalism held to a lesser standard? Given how public the audience and thereby how much higher the stakes, shouldn't the standards be higher?

[Southland]

No. There are some issues that should not be "both-side"ed (like climate change or whether Neo-Nazis have good ideas).

[Cannot think of a name]

How do you determine what a “side” is and who its best representative is? This is before we get into the notion that every side has merit or the same weight of evidence.

How do you determine if a “side” is represented fairly? Do you want to revive a version of the “equal time” rule but for all stories? Do we benefit, for example, from giving mass shooters a platform because they’re a “side?” Or nazis?

It sounds like a good idea but in application is uninflectable and in some cases prone to abuse. You’ll have to rely on good ol critical reading.

[San Lumen]

No. There is something called freedom of the press and such a rule violates that.

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

Yes...
...and no.

I would say reporters shouldn't strictly speaking get "both sides", but rather as many facts as possible in order to present the facts (not their opinions or whatnot). The job of a reporter is to report, after all. Using the example aforementioned, why should one listen to the "Nazi side" of the story? Well one shouldn't, because the facts have shown that Nazis are... not good people, shall we say.

Idk why but it reminded me of the following story:

During the German invasion of Norway in the Second World War, a Luftwaffe bomber crashed into the North Sea. A couple Norwegian fishermen who were in a boat passed by the crash site to see if there were any survivors.
When they returned to land, someone on the shore asked, "Did anyone survive the crash?"
One of the fishermen replied, "Well, when we called out, one man said he was alive, but you know what liars those Nazis are."

[Ethel mermania]

No, but I would not mind a return of the fairness doctrine

[Existential Cats]

What do you mean "both sides"? Pretty much all stories have numerous sides.

There's the side of the black teen and the side of the female hospital worker, but also the side of people who are dependent on citi bikes because they don't have a bicycle of their own, the sides of armchair activists trying to blow this minor altercation up into a national issue, the side of citi bike itself, the side of the underpaid journalists covering these stories, etc. I don't think framing this as a "he said, she said" story would help.

[La Cocina del Bodhi]

Obviously reporters should be getting both sides of things. It’s the only way for the public to get decent information. Anything less is simply propaganda. Not facts, not truth. It’s why as I’ve said before, the country is increasingly divided. Both the left and right live in their own reality shaped by the media they consume, and that reality is completely foreign the other side. Because of the media, it’s as if people are speaking different languages. There are no objective, unbiased news sources left the US. All of them push a partisan agenda.

[Heavenly Assault]

No, I don't think journalism should be regulated like that. I'm generally opposed to things that take agency out of people's hands and put life on easy mode for them. Yeah, it would be easier, hypothetically, but that's not a good thing for intellectualism. People really SHOULD think for themselves, critically, and learn not to jump to conclusions. If you do it for them, they will not learn, thus perpetuating the cycle of ignorance. Not to mention the inherent corruption that comes with giving the government power over the media.

[The Black Forrest]

When politicians consider both sides; then maybe we can talk about the reporters telling both sides.

The both sides “argument” is usually raised when somebody is being a jackass and doesn’t like it being pointed out.

[La Xinga]

Although reporters who claim to be fair and honest should report both sides of the story, it should definitely not be required for them to do so. Although I am not a reporter, I would see how afraid a reporter must be of accidentally reporting a story incorrectly (edit: if this were to be implemented), thus leading to a decline in reported incidents.

[Katganistan]

I actually respect Dr. Richey for his very public apology in stating that he was wrong.

[Hispida]

depends on what's being "both sided" here.

[Melrovia]

I think they should for the sake of trust and integrity. One of the reasons polarization is so bad right now is because lots of Americans think their perspective isn't being heard. However, I don't think it should be legally required because that would go against the First Amendment.

[Melrovia]

I think they should for the sake of trust and integrity. One of the reasons polarization is so bad right now is because lots of Americans think their perspective isn't being heard. However, I don't think it should be legally required because that would go against the First Amendment.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

No, because some ideas are just stupid and don't deserve equal air time. Should I be given air time every time there is a story about Australia, to promote my theory that Australia is a lie and doesn't exist, for the sake of some crude idea of balance?

[Wizlandia]

Journalists that publish a defamatory false statement of fact without reason to believe that said statement is true absolutely should be liable for damages. Not a lawyer but I think the current "reckless disregard for the truth" standard requires showing the defendant had serious doubts about the accuracy of the statement - which is perhaps too high a bar.

Also we should entertain employment rights legislation that'd make it harder for HR to suspend or fire employees for PR and other reasons unrelated to their work or conduct at work.

[Ethel mermania]

When politicians consider both sides; then maybe we can talk about the reporters telling both sides.

The both sides “argument” is usually raised when somebody is being a jackass and doesn’t like it being pointed out.

If the story of both sides was told, everyone would know the Boston massacre never happened.

[Orcuo]

Yes and no. It should be encouraged, but not enforced.

[Rusozak]

depends on what's being "both sided" here.

That's the thing. Laws don't leave room for nuance. If we were to have a law requiring sharing "both sides" of a story about a case of mistaken bicycle theft, then we also have to share both sides of say, a hate crime or a mass shooting.

[Juansonia]

The idea of there being "both sides" often doesn't make sense. Sometimes, only one side exists, such as in the case of weather. Other times, three or more sides exist.

I believe that, in the case of non-opinion segments, news reporters should stick with the facts at hand (police stated xyz, foo allegedly abc'd bar, etc.), try not to hide counter-narrative information, and avoid presenting speculation as fact. I wouldn't suppport a government mandate, however.

[El Lazaro]

No, because there are always a lot of sides, and any reasonable person would be able to agree a great number of them are just plain stupid, crazy, and/or awful.

[James_xenoland]

If they want to be looked at and treated as reporters. And i'd argue, if they want press freedoms and protections. If they don't then they are little more that advocates or worse, activists. But not reporters/journalists, that's without doubt.

[The Black Forrest]

If they want to be looked at and treated as reporters. And i'd argue, if they want press freedoms and protections. If they don't then they are little more that advocates or worse, activists. But not reporters/journalists, that's without doubt.

Who decides if the information of “their side” is right? You see that now with conservatives. Liberal bias, blah, blah, blah.

Facts are not as important as the message. Covid and anti-vax views……

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

As a political art that inevitably falls into the service of one particular party, or ideology, any expectation of, or demand for objectivity is quite a foolish waste of breath and time.
If you wish to be critical in your critique of the thing, then you must take up the intellectual burden of reading the New York Post along with the Times, or be content in your partisanship.