Balancing the Holocaust

Controversy has erupted over C-Span's plan to broadcast a speech by a Holocaust denier to "balance" broadcast of remarks by a Holocaust scholar.

"Balance" is a cherished concept for journalists, but sometimes it can run amok. Consider the 1935 textbook "The Reporter and the News," which offers a startling example of a news story that demands that "both sides in a controversial matter be given a chance to have their position stated."

"The Jewish persecution by the German Nazi Government" is an example of a struggle between strong rival groups, the textbook solemnly intones, and therefore every claim by the "strong" German Jews should be balanced with an equal response from the Nazi regime - even though Jews at that point were being imprisoned in concentration camps, stripped of their property, and dismissed from government posts.

Lest journalists smugly assume we've gotten past such insidious examples of the need for "balance," C-Span reminds us we haven't. The cable network planned to show a March 16 speech by Professor Deborah Lipstadt discussing her experiences as the defendant in a libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving. A British court dismissed Irving's suit, concluding that he deliberately misrepresented historical evidence.

Still, C-Span decided that it couldn't show Lipstadt's speech without balancing it with Irving's position. As a C-Span spokeswoman told The New York Times, the network decided to tape an Irving lecture in order to cover "the plaintiff's side of the trial." Lipstadt then refused to allow the network to tape her speech. At first, C-Span said it would show Irving's lecture anyway, but is now debating what to do.

The episode suggests that some journalists continue to lack both an understanding of the Holocaust and of the proper use of balance.

Balance in journalism is best understood as a philosophy, not a methodology. But too often journalists transform this worthy goal into a mechanistic exercise. Journalists identify the two sides of the story, seek out a comment from one side, then the other, include them both, and call it a day.

This ode to impartiality masks the many subjective judgments the journalist has made along the way, from defining "the sides" of the story to identifying those who can speak credibly on a topic. That means it's rarely obvious or automatic that journalists have to present "both sides" in order to be impartial.

Some journalists seem to resort to "balancing" out of laziness or out of ignorance of the underlying event. In the case of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in 1930s, both sides weren't equally strong. In explaining the history of the Holocaust, there aren't two sides. Those who claim the extermination of the Jews didn't happen have only prejudice and lies to support their position.

Journalists are always making decisions about the information worth presenting to the public. As long as they acknowledge their choices and can defend them, journalists should be able to treat some views as worthy of being presented and some as not. In C-Span's case, it's not even a close call.

Laurel Leff is an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University in Boston and the author of "Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper" (Cambridge University Press).

Home