Bothsidesing: Not All Sides Are Equal
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.merriam-webster.com /words-at-play/bothsidesing-bothsidesism-new-words-were-watching
Editors of Merriam-Webster 5-6 minutes 9/22/2019
Bothsidesing is a critique leveled at the media and public personas referring to the practice of finding a second angle on a story in an attempt at appearing "fair" to each side, which can often be seen as lending credibility to a side or objectionable idea that has none.
There are two sides to every story, or so we are told. Two people in an argument aren’t going to see an issue the same way. And people on different ends of the political spectrum are going to have different opinions about the events that take place in the news.
Getting more than one point of view to the story is part and parcel of journalism, but sometimes that means taking pains to look for a second angle to a subject merely for the sake of argument. And that is how we have come to see use of bothsidesing .
The state of our nation and the state of our president have all but passed the point of rescue, but the press, in misguided pursuit of objectivity and led by the New York Times, still “bothsides” its coverage. Make no mistake: This too is bias, and though it’s not nearly as corrosive to democracy as the Trump administration, it distorts and accelerates that corrosion—all in the name of neutrality, no less.
— Roger Sollenberger, Paste , 27 Dec. 2018 Conservatives who spent decades railing against Kennedy, calling him a murderer and a scoundrel and screaming about the left's silence, are right to be annoyed by the bothsidesing of this event.
— Sonny Bunch, The Washington Post , 19 Apr. 2018
Bothsidesing and its related noun bothsidesism turn up in critiques of the news media when a journalist or pundit seems to give extra credence to a cause, action, or idea that on the surface seems objectionable, thereby establishing a sort of moral equivalence that allows said cause, action, or idea to be weighed seriously.
By giving credence to the other side, the media gives an impression of being fair to its subject, but in doing so often provides credibility to an idea that most might view as unmerited.
What really makes this the Tapper Moment, though, is not his growing fame and viral interviews. It's the breadth of the respect he's earned, and how he's wielding it in the age of Trump. Because while he's tough on conservatives and liberals alike, he doesn't engage in bothsidesism . As Tapper said to Maher, "I've never really seen this level of falsehood, just quantitatively."
— Graham Vyse, The New Republic , 9 Mar. 2018
'Bothsidesing' in Politics
It’s not just the media that gets accused of bothsidesing. The term also arises whenever a public official—or anyone with a large listening audience—equivocates about a seemingly condemnable action by saying that the people on either side of that action are equally responsible for it having taken place. Bothsidesing happens prominently during times of mass protest—as protests are met with counterprotests and violent clashes erupt, turning to bothsidesism prevents one from explicitly identifying which is in the wrong, thereby avoiding any incisive comment on the discord that led to the protests in the first place.
Calling this action bothsidesing might be a deliberate echo of Trump’s own language. In August 2017 he responded to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, saying that there were “very fine people on both sides” at the rally, language that was viewed by many as a deliberate attempt to avoid singling out white supremacist activity.
It’s probably not a coincidence that use of the term has increased in the months since Trump uttered the line—much of it on Twitter, sometimes as a hashtag.
Similarities to 'Whataboutism'
Bothsidesing has a lot in common with whataboutism —the rhetorical tactic of defending against an accusation by alerting others to a different accusation against an opponent. Both tactics rely on making false equivalences. While whataboutism comes with an element of diversion—look at what the guy over there did—bothsidesing tries to minimize what would often be deemed objectionable by heightening actions of other groups so that they will be deemed comparably objectionable.
Some might argue that bothsidesing exposes a paradox about journalism: that sometimes, when both sides are treated fairly and equally, neither ends up shown in a true light.
Words We're Watching talks about words we are increasingly seeing in use but that have not yet met our criteria for entry .
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
I was watching the CNN show Smerconish this morning. Michael Smerconish, the host, is a notorious "bothsideser. " He regularly editorializes on why being in the middle is the best path.
Today he asked his viewers to weigh in on this topic - which political party has moved the farthest to the extreme, the left or the right? People go and vote on Smerconish website. At the end of his show he announced the results of his "poll" , in which 27,000 people voted - 92% of respondents said that the right has become the most extreme, compared to 8% saying the left has.
What did the great centrist Michael Smerconish do ? He announced that the 92% are wrong, the true answer is that BOTH sides have become equally extreme. He dissed his own audience, lol, in order to retain his "both sides" credentials.
Correct
Well , since you are "right down the center", lol, I guess we better listen to you.
my thoughts as well
You should, you might learn something if you get out of your partisan bubble.
People who believe you are actually non partisan are guilty of their own "bothsidesism".
People are welcome to have an opinion. Interesting that you seem to divert it to be about me. Weak John, very weak.
95% of your comments are from a right wing point of view, in some cases far right.
Yet you present yourself as non partisan. Its silly.
The article is not about me John. It is a weak diversion. Weak John, very weak. I have no desire to defend myself to you or anyone else.
"right down the center",
It must be that 'new math' thingy.
Where nothing adds up any better than Jethro Bodine.
And if a Fox news anchor asked the same question, the response would be reversed.
Possibly, although I doubt if left wingers flock to watch Smerconish on Saturday mornings. He is extremely "bothsides" prone. I would guess his audience is much more moderate than some of the other shows on CNN.
I would tend to think very few from the right or right center watch the show since it is on CNN so the poll should be no surprise. Most people (especially from the right) probably don't know who the host is and what his schtick is. I have heard that there are more from the left that watch fox then there are from the right (or anywhere) that watch CNN so the poll might not be a skewed as it is on CNN.
And there it is! The third-leg of the stool: Projection.
My impression of Smerconish is he is conservative-right thinking independent owing to his many decades in the Republican Party. And, since 2010 he has listed himself as Independent. Holding down television space as a moderate. My biggest 'distaste' with independents is not their fairness to both sides, or their deep thinking on the issues, it is that some independent voters try to render "the answer" as simply transactional. Especially, if they don't have to see the 'makings' that go into the deal.
Smerconish, and some independent voters, come across (to me anyway) like shareholders who do not take account of the stakeholders. And its telling that a positive outcome for shareholders, mostly will leave stakeholders in a negative loss. That said, we do see positives outweigh the negatives. . . on "both sides' just not often enough.
That is because people are doing more combat than seeking cooperative understanding, right now.
Smerconish was 30 years a republican. That is well beyond a political career. He is a conservative at heart. And, of course, he brings along to CNN those cast-off republican "refugees" that have not landed on MSNBC's shores. Of course, the poll voters on CNN have to be watching to enter and engage it for one hour. We have no idea of the mixture of respondents to the poll taken. So, comparing it to a Fox poll yields nothing in understanding. (For similar reason, on any given day in a Fox poll who can say who the television/online respondents are in their households?)
Sounds like an intelligent man.
Eh, the left has taken some things a bit far for my taste, but the right has sprinted down the extremist path with no hesitation.
You have it exactly backwards, thus why I left the democrat party I grew up with.
There is not such thing as "the democrat party". There is the Democratic Party and to claim otherwise would be the height of ignorance.
Sadly, the Republican Party has degenerated into a Trumpist-Fascist anti-democratic, anti-American entity.
“Sadly, the Republican Party has degenerated into a Trumpist-Fascist anti-democratic, anti-American entity”
Incontrovertible.
It is the best path.
From the middle, one can see how fully deranged both sets of extremists are.
The key word here is 'equally'.
For example, it is valid to note that both major parties are focused on power rather than doing what is best for the people. Noting common negative properties is not the same as saying the parties operate the same way or have the same effect.
An excellent example, IMO, of actual 'both-sidesing' is when people equate the lying of Trump to the lying of Biden. Both presidents are known for their falsehoods but the scale, bad intent and level of harm done by Trump's lying dwarfs that of Biden's (and every other PotUS per historical records).
When someone criticizes both parties and claims that both sides are equally at fault then I (barring exceptional circumstances) would have no objection to calling that out as 'bothsidesing" and deeming it to be faulty analysis. But criticizing both parties for what they actually do (implicitly recognizing they operate differently and have different effects ... i.e. they are not necessarily equally bad) is not faulty analysis.
Both parties are heavily populated with narcissistic, power and ego driven politicians and operatives who are focused more on personal and partisan benefits than they are on doing the best job for the people of the nation. Neither party holds true to the ideal of statesmanship. Noting this and variants thereof is objective, critical analysis of the facts; not faulty analysis based on some emotional desire to 'make all things equal'.
No individual and no organization on this earth is perfect. So on that basis blaming "both sides" for something makes some slight sense. In political reality though, doing the both sides thing bails the most extremists on one side out. We have a political party that tried to steal a presidential election. When otherwise reasonable people say something like "well the election laws did seem a little dubious" they are bothsidesing the group that tried to steal the election into credibility. "Bothsidesing" will always help the side that is farthest from reality.
Both sides faulting is proper if the quality is in fact true for both sides. It would be quite rare if the quality were identical on both sides but it is certainly easy to list faults common to both parties.
I think your example is shifting the blame (shifting blame from Trump trying to steal to imperfect election laws). Bothsidesing would make sense in your example if one tried to lessen Trump's attempt to steal the election by equating it to Gore's objection in 2000. Both candidates objected (common) but Gore (unlike Trump) dropped his pursuits after the recount and conceded the election. Trump to this day has never conceded and continues to fan the flames of distrust in our electoral system. The damage to the nation by Trump, et. al. does not even remotely compare.
One party tried to have a duly and honestly elected president forced room office by false accusations of collusion with a foreign power and baseless impeachment attempts.
You need to face reality. Just a couple months ago Trump asked Putin to release dirt on the Bidens.
You could hardly ask for more of a verifier that he had asked the Russians to help him in 2016, "find Hillary's emails" , and in 2019 when he asked Zelensky to "investigate" the Bidens in Ukraine. Trump has inadvertently, because he's an idiot, verified his own long lasting pattern of behavior (asking foreign leaders and foreign governments to help him win elections).
“In political reality though, doing the both sides thing bails the most extremists on one side out.”
Agreed.
The left are more interested in change, so naturally they tend toward activism. Taken to the extreme, it leads to protests that can get out of control and result in vandalism, property destruction, and personal injury. Not good.
The right, conversely, are focused on maintaining the status quo, thus the resurgence of nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism). Taken to its extreme, we get a 1/6 fiasco, hate filled rhetoric of succession, open revolt, and violence against any who may threaten their way of life. Not good.
It will take a new generation of leaders to bridge the ever widening gap. Afraid it will get worse before it gets better. And now that I’ve pissed off everyone on either side, headed off to the farmers market.
…peace, all.
Sounds about right. If the market has Winesap apples try some. They are hard to find where I am.
You're not the only one who pisses off everyone because of believing that it's actually possible that there CAN be two sides to a story, even if they may not be equally valid. Joni isn't the only person who's seen clouds from both sides.
While I agree if you take each issue one side may be more guilty of infraction than the other but personally I use "equally" as a way to describe an overall "narcissistic, power and ego driven politicians and operatives who are focused more on personal and partisan benefits than they are on doing the best job for the people of the nation".
I have no problem comparing the two parties and faulting both of them on: "narcissistic, power and ego driven politicians and operatives who are focused more on personal and partisan benefits than they are on doing the best job for the people of the nation".
Note, however, how someone can take that fact and then engage in bothsidesism. One can react to Trump's extreme narcissism, lying, etc. by saying that both sides have narcissistic, lying politicians. If someone deemed that bothsidesism I would not object.
as objectively as any's bias's can be left out of something, that any, for damn good reason, must question hourly, not daily, cause, to me , screams of equality, is like a Black and White Cow, Tipped , off of there heavy rocker being no straw hat man to r gue bout berry the heartless hacks from handheld , hacks coughing up hacked lacking Courage by even axing, more Bull shit spread, and to the seriousness as to it's nature, an actual EQUAILITY comparison between the two parties is not achievable, for Trumps' GOP to be compared with/to the Dem's we see, is not even atTall a tad bit conceivable, shit construed to miss, the debate an acutely obtuse angle knot wright that doesn't carry wait, or have a ppoint, cuz, brother against brother and sister not for, one another in such an un-paralleled increment etched in Tim ex, fails to band Citizens to watch, four twenty and more, from being too high, for say, comparison, to even try, for therev is not another exampull even from a Hat, where the far left, can be accused
of election theft, as the Rabids, on the right, bat shit crazy not always wrapped too tight, still attempt to steal the art, of the deal being attempted sold, asz an insurrection is a tad stiffer a sentence, then say than say too many on the left have ever attempted, as da gop missing another oppurtunity to say, raise taxes on our richest, for it requires a GOP excuse, and another attempt to tax the middle class, right on their ass till off their feat and under a cheating heart of stone to bleat, leaving US to sink, due to SQUERRLL, as another oppurtunity to see F we truly do unfurled as spun out of this whirled are those destined, to fail, sorry, had to bail, but hay, somewhere out there, i made an outhere point....of know return
It's great that there are actually some members on this site whose comments make common sense to me.
Happy to be one of that select group.
Whatever the "survey says", you're hopelessly stuck on the wrong side. Biden and the devious left are intent on abrogating the rule of law and destroying democracy.
That's the current living in a glass house yarn from the right, the left has a similar yarn and that hints at both abstractions being correct ... or wrong.
Bothsidesing and its related noun bothsidesism
Hopefully both 'words' will be summarily taken out back and shot.
Our two main political party systems are over-saturated. That is, these people are drowning in excesses of everything political. Now, the overflowing has trickled down to the activist and commentator level and plenty want to 'play.' Our two main political parties have corrupted themselves with 'smartness,' 'cuteness,' and are driven into a deep rut. They will remain there until either some "tow-truck" of the people pulls one or both sides up and out; or the "weighted" center of all this political garbage shifts to positivity or party "seniors" age out or retire.
All of us, and I do mean all of us, should keep this one thing in mind: These literal and figurative head-aches we are experiencing on a near daily basis stem from having our very life-forces stolen as we gaze down helplessly to stop a pipe of political pollution jammed into each of us, and another return pipe streaming our essences to a 'void' in D.C.
Both sides, huh?
Side one: "I'm like a really smart guy," DJT.
Side two: "I know more than the generals," DJT.
Not much more to it is there?
Seems like the biggest complainers about this are from people who simply refuse to acknowledge that what they accuse one side of doing, their own side is also doing.
They seem to think admitting that their party is not perfect will destroy democracy as we know it. Then again they pretty much think almost anything is an attack on democracy as they would like it.
yes, this is rather tiresome to hear multiple times a month.
Changes nothing, just an excuse to vent about Trump.
... and your comment was what other than an excuse to vent about venting about Trump. One would think you would ignore them ... there is little so devastating than silence.
Many people seem to think silence is an admission that they are right.
I think it will destroy some liberals and CNN and MSNBC might go out of business if Trump decides not to run. The devastation will be catastrophic. Must watch TV
Gee, when will the left be silent about all the perceived ills in the world?
Perhaps not out of business, but I would fully expect to see some tears and possibly some screaming at the sky.
I think them devoting their entire networks to shilling for the Biden Administration will be their best option to hang onto viewers too dumb to do any research on their own.
possibly, when ill perceived, cause well are the deceived, another mission achieved without the carrier, plane and simply complex....
not necessarily when good reveals ethics breaches with a gun pointed at themselves tomorrow and yesterday looking good
not today
maybe you are seaing things differently
Yep, nothing could be more devastating than when a partisan finally makes the connection that silence, does not automatically indicate agreement.
That is they ever make that realization. Many don’t.
”…seaing things…”
Alas, anymore it is how the winds blow and how the tides rise and fall.
Mutiny is the cause de jour…leaving us all stranded and grounded upon which unfounded definition one wishes to anchor.
“.::not necessarily when good reveals ethics breaches with a gun pointed at themselves tomorrow and yesterday looking good…”
An interpretation of this comment may be beneficial for further discussion…
I will let the readers decipher the comment if they are able.
You don't on yours, why should I on mine?
Perhaps it is all affected by the moon.
Two ships passing in the night hardly a mutiny make. Definitions are fluid anyway!
Keeping rowing upstream, tex…continually and predictably missing the boat.
I own the boat and am perfectly fine just drifting along with the currents!
I'll leave the rowing to the minions!
[removed]
[Deleted]
When will the right board the same train or are their culture wars too invigorating? ... Kill the Mouse, Kill the Maus!
“…am perfectly fine just drifting along with the currents!”
All we need to know and all we ever suspected.
your concern is really touching.
thank you
Nah. They'll just pivot to whoever actually wins the Republican nomination and declare that person the most evil to ever walk the earth.
They'll find 1000 reasons for liberals to get hysterical, and we'll spend the next 4 years listening to our NT lefty extremists spinning endless nonsense about how democracy is ending because women have a copay for birth control or some other shite.
Most people, left, right and indy, want to see candidates and ultimately nominees to be people with some evidence of ethics, character and leadership.
Yep and it went into warp speed when the chosen one lost.
That poor hotel room, it will never be the same.
Another made up word, probably by some ultra liberal college professor, as more camouflage to help cover for and push their radical narratives.
Oh and by the way, the word is not accepted as such in the Merriam Webster just yet. It’s only under consideration.
So this discussion is completely hypothetical, at this particular time ......
Just one more reason not to diminish and not take seriously change, eh? Instead of engaging thoughtfully, simply look for the / an angle of defeat and invalidation - get mileage. Internalize nothing. Better nothing. Change nothing. Cha-ching!
Yawn .... call me when Merriam Webster agrees with you.
Until then, it’s just another made up word like ..... narcissistomaniac.
Diminish-ism? [Another -ism]?
What is occurring here is people are bucking the established rules in life in quick succession. When that occurs people 'rush' to state in individual ways what "it" is that is being revealed to the mind, body, and spirit. For example. "Woke" and "Wokeism" -have positive conveyance and forms an image or images in the mind. Of course, the imagery was so strong some felt threaten and build in a counterattack to turn the two words into poisonous, ghetto, thuggish, unapproachable, and tainted mental images for avoidance. (It failed, nevertheless.)
“Merriam Webster”
Can we all agree that quoting a dictionary is not supporting an argument and only intellectually lazy?
State an opinion and let it stand scrutiny…sans some 19th century etymology.
No but we can agree that using words that do not exist in the English language is disingenuous at best and completely nuts at worst.
Programming-ism .....
The act of manipulating the weaker mind in an attempt to push a preferred narrative.
Hey! Is that in the Merriam Webster (MW) dictionary, let me take a look: Programming-ism . . . .?
Nope, it is not in there. You did NOT get a call from MW, and yet you appropriated a word! Wow, that break from your stated doctrine was lightning quick!
Just following your lead and making shit up. Would you like to use real words now?
No! You're not following me. Why would a 'leader' do something simplistic like that? I am never going to be your excuse, SO. Ready to leave that alternative reality and repatriate yet?
Thank god I’m not following your reality. I’d be really screwed then. So no thanks, not interested your reality. Not in the least but go ahead and take that last word. You are dismissed.
Told you s-So how is that whole "weak mind. . . narrative" playing itself out here now?
It seems like the kind of fallacy for which we already have names: False Equivalence. Whataboutism, etc. I’m not sure we need a new one.
I think sometimes there is a little too much focus on supposed logical fallacies and they are cited to as a lazy way of dismissing someone else’s point of view. There can be legitimate reasons why someone might cite a person, behavior, or situation that is similar to the current topic. If we’re really here for a conversation, then each side should make a real argument and not just say “this is just like that other thing” or “you’re just engaging in bothsidesism.” Without more substance, both are low effort, unsophisticated offerings.
Some are here for good sharing and good conversation—even better political talk; others are here to astroTurf this 'place,' propagandize, political 'sparring,' and "owning." That is, they are here to convey a one-sided agenda every time they crack open NT's 'door.' These folks take something from the spirit of the efforts here and displace it, and give back nothing of themselves in return. It's really depressing if you stop and think about it.