A Question of Balance

Abstract

Although balance is a well-known and arguably important journalistic norm, how should journalists adhere to this norm when the bulk of scientific evidence clearly favors one (presumably accurate) perspective? Should balance be defined in terms of the quantity of information or the quality of viewpoints presented? Using British and American newspaper coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy as a case study, this article explores whether balanced reporting on scientific claims produced a discourse at odds with the scientific consensus that there was no autism-vaccine link. Implications for journalism ethics and risk communication are discussed.