I would argue that this is not the problem. First, it assumes there are only 2 sides to an issue. Second, there have been many times when the "other" side of an issue is given waaaaaaay more prominence than it deserves, or when a reporter has had to dig and dig to find some completely underwhelming "other" side so as have a "balance" in their story - no matter how artificial - so they can insulate themselves from challenges of bias. There are times when one side gets marginalized in the coverage, but no one ever really stops to ask whether or not that side of the coverage was ever legitimate to start with.
I have a Masters' degree in Journalism, and I've taught in 2 different J-schools as a grad assistant, and I can categorically say that this is 100% not the case in either of the schools I've been associated with.
Bookmarks