False Equivalence
Presenting two unequal things as comparable
Definition
False equivalence is a propaganda technique that presents two sides of an issue as equally valid or equally culpable when they are not. In media, it often appears as 'both sides' journalism that gives equal weight to asymmetric positions — creating a misleading appearance of balance.
How It Works in Media
Outlets practice 'both-sides-ism' by giving equal time, equal column inches, or equal headline prominence to two positions that are not equally supported by evidence. This creates the impression that an issue is more contested than it actually is.
In conflict reporting, false equivalence often takes the form of comparing the actions of actors with vastly different power, resources, and capabilities — as if context, scale, and power dynamics are irrelevant.
False equivalence can also appear in science coverage, where a fringe position is given equal weight to established scientific consensus, or in political coverage where a minor gaffe receives the same coverage as a major policy failure.
Real-World Example
An outlet covers an environmental disaster by giving equal space to the scientific community's assessment and to an industry lobbyist's denial. The headline reads 'Scientists and Industry Disagree on Environmental Impact' — framing a near-consensus scientific finding as a debate between two equally credible positions.
False equivalence transforms established knowledge into an 'ongoing debate' by treating an industry-funded denial as equal to peer-reviewed research. The reader leaves thinking 'well, both sides have a point' when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one position. This is not balance — it is a distortion of reality in the name of appearing fair.
How to Spot It
- Look for 'both sides' framing on issues where evidence strongly favors one position.
- Check whether the sources quoted represent proportional expertise or false balance.
- Ask: are these two positions genuinely comparable in evidence, scale, or culpability?
- Notice when power dynamics, resources, or context are erased in the name of 'balance.'
- Be wary of headlines that frame established facts as 'debates' or 'disagreements.'
Why It Matters
False equivalence protects the powerful by distributing blame equally in situations where responsibility is not equal. It manufactures doubt where consensus exists, creates moral confusion where clarity is possible, and gives audiences permission to disengage from accountability by saying 'both sides are bad.' Understanding false equivalence is essential for evaluating media coverage of conflicts, science, and political accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is false equivalence in journalism?
False equivalence in journalism is when media coverage presents two sides of an issue as equally valid, equally supported by evidence, or equally culpable when they are not. It often appears as 'both-sides' reporting that gives equal weight to positions with vastly different levels of evidence, responsibility, or scientific support — creating a misleading appearance of balance.
Why is 'both sides' journalism sometimes misleading?
Both-sides journalism becomes misleading when it equates positions that are not equal. Giving equal time to a scientist and a lobbyist on a scientific question, or treating a minor and a major offense as equivalent, distorts reality. True journalistic balance means proportional representation of evidence, not mechanical equal time for all claims regardless of merit.