Impartial journalism is laudable. But false balance is dangerous

When the evidence is clear-cut, the assumption that good journalism requires mutually opposed views to be treated as equally valid simply doesn't hold

Impartiality lies at the very heart of good journalism - avoiding bias is something on which respectable media outlets pride themselves. This is laudable, as robust debate is vital for a healthy media and, by extension, an informed society. But when the weight of scientific evidence points incontrovertibly one direction, doggedly reporting both "sides" equally can result in misleading coverage.

The BBC provided a high-profile example of this in 2011, coming in for harsh criticism in a Trust report which singled out their "undue attention to marginal opinion" on the subject of man made climate change, among other issues. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity is driving climate change, the report found that several BBC shows fell victim to an "over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality," resulting in far too much airtime for climate change deniers. A follow-up report published in 2014 concluded that this key conclusion "still resonates today".