Being a journalist has got to be hard.  Nasty emails and public trashing because, heaven forbid, you write a piece that doesn’t come off as some lukewarm non-story of two babbling idiots yelling at each other: particularly when your area of coverage is DC or the state capitols where those red-faced blowhards are your regular beat.  So I write these words with the utmost respect for the job and for the challenge involved in presenting the news.  But…

Journalists no longer cover the news.

For sure, they cover parts of the news.  They love the horse race stories and the hot-button issues in which they can find some real scintillating quotes from the usual suspects.  They can cover real world events through a plastic veneer of objectivity because they point out that in the 21st Century, we no longer seem to have consensus about anything.  But this isn’t covering the news.  Not really.  Not in the way we think of it or in the way they even mean to.  This is something else.  This is…

imposing equilibrium.

The he said/she said approach only discusses what is talked about, but not the issue.  Neither does it accurately represent the way things are.  Journalists seem pretty eager to seek out balance of opinion, but even that isn’t necessarily balanced.

 

The debate over climate change is the perfect example.  Virtually every scientist is in agreement on climate change and humanity’s place in it. In fact, most of the world is in pretty much agreement that it exists and the real conversation is what we do about it.  And yet, a small group with virtually no support is put up against everyone else and made to balance it out.

This process reminds me of a big imaginary scale.  Sometimes, one side gets pushed down a certain amount and the other side goes up that same amount!  Imagine!  But to journalists covering stories, we often have a different arrangement:

Somehow, we make both sides go down, even when there is no weight and the very system wouldn’t allow for it.  See, even the very process doesn’t allow for symmetry!

All of this trying to force balance where it doesn’t actually exist is based out of an unsubstantiated belief about the world: that there is a fundamental equilibrium.  This sense  isn’t founded in facts or philosophy.  It just sort of is.  And it seems to be getting worse.  And by worse, I mean tortured to fit into an equilibrium imposed on us.

We read about one political operative doing something and we jump to the conclusion that an opposing operative somewhere must be doing the same thing.  Then we take that thought and turn it into belief.  “It has to be true” becomes “it is true”.  Then we call in to a radio show and declare “Look!  They’re the ones doing it!” turning a matter of faith based on an illogical assumption into a means of discrediting the opponent.  And not one part of that process was true except for the original element: that one political operative who did something in the first place.

Most of the blame must go to the journalists for supporting this imposed equilibrium onto us in nearly every story they report today.  But we have to take on our share.  Because seriously, we don’t operate from facts and actuality, but half-truths and assumptions (what an assumption I just made!)

Christians need to be especially careful of this imposed equilibrium.  There is nothing scriptural about this sense of balance, and yet we often take it for granted as the natural order, and therefore, G-d’s plan for humanity.  That’s our assumption.

This extends into our view of good/evil and heaven/hell that is equal parts Zoroastrianism and Plato [psst!  Neither of these sources is Christian!  Pass it on!].  We see an equilibrium of good and evil, and agents of heaven and hell, with an equal opportunity to spend eternity in a cloud or a fire pit.

None of this is Christian belief, but equilibrium imposed upon our faith.  It may be to our benefit…or it may not.  But I’m not sure it really is a “natural” order.

Our focus should be on the good news.  And we can’t do that honestly when we impose equilibrium on the world.  We need to proclaim that news as it comes to us and as we come to know it.  That’s the more authentic way to do it.  Not sending it through a schema of equilibrium first, because G-d’s equilibrium is to put all of us haves into the have-not bin.  And that doesn’t match the version we’re imposing.