This effect stems from a well-meaning but flawed desire to appear fair or impartial. The result is a misleading perception that both sides are equally valid, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly skewed toward one side.
The false balance effect works because people value fairness and neutrality, and audiences are drawn to narratives that seem to represent "both sides" of an issue. This bias exploits the audience’s lack of expertise in evaluating the weight of evidence, making it easy to conflate the appearance of fairness with actual fairness. The effect also takes advantage of the media’s tendency to frame issues as debates or conflicts, even when one side lacks substantive support.
The false balance effect is often seen in media coverage, where presenting opposing perspectives, regardless of their factual grounding, creates controversy and engages audiences. For example, a cable news host might present a climate scientist and a climate change denier as equally credible participants in a debate, giving undue legitimacy to the denier’s views despite overwhelming scientific consensus.
