"Weight of Evidence" versus "Balance" in News Reporting
|Above copied from Rappler|
The debate within the scientific community is of course dominated by a broad consensus on what psychoactive drugs do to the human body. Here is an example:
"I suggest another strategy that would permit journalists to retain their emphasis on objectivity and balance but still share with their audiences a sense of where "truth" might lie, at least at that moment. I call this strategy "weight-of-evidence" reporting. It calls on journalists not to determine what's true but, instead, to find out where the bulk of evidence and expert thought lies on the truth continuum and then communicate that to audiences. Reporters are still responsible for capturing points of view accurately (objectivity) and for sharing with audiences the existence of more than one contrasting point of view (balance). But added to that mix would be information about which point of view has captured the hearts and minds of the majority of experts, information about where they think the truth lies at that moment."Rappler should therefore have added a footnote to Cecilia Lero'a article that says what most experts really think about psychoactive drugs.