"There are two sides to every story." This common maxim is regularly rolled out in arguments, public and private. It is a truism of sorts: yes, there are always many ways to interpret a single event. Humans are small, frail creatures, with limited perception and conflicting ideals. A newly-discovered recollection of Christ's crucifixion by a Roman soldier might be, for all its historical worth, oddly banal. Batman written by the families of the hero's hospitalised victims might be more fraught than the traditional stories. So, yes: two sides, at least.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The more important question is whether we should listen to all of the interpretations. If not, which ones are more deserving of our few hours and little energy? Put another way, if there are two sides to every story, there is also another side to this maxim - and I'm about to offer it.
This maxim is often used as a reply to argument. It basically says: I know you think that's true, but it's not the whole truth. Which can be fair enough when speaking of experience. This is straightforward: two lives are never the same, and it is healthy to recognise one's lived limits.
But often there is a subtle slippage at work: someone moves from different experiences of events, to different events altogether. By pointing out there are two sides, they try to avoid recognition of certain important facts. For example, it is true that residents of Australia's eastern coast will experience global warming differently to Minnesotans - there is nothing "warm" about blizzards. But this experience changes nothing about climate scientists' predictions globally, which include local increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, hot and cold.
Which brings me to the use of the maxim in the media. Whether explicit or implicit, the idea of "two sides" guides some producers and journalists. So there is one story from recognised climate authorities - reporting a consensus derived from experts the world over - and then there is another story from, say, Donald Trump. Trump's interpretation of global warming is that it is "bullshit", because parts of the United States are freezing. However, this interpretation is of little value, because the businessman, while outspoken and popular, demonstrates no familiarity with climate science.
This exposes the problem with the maxim, or its code equivalent in the media, balance. Two sides can be helpful when they challenge us to rethink and revise ideas; when their precision and rigour, coupled with relevant evidence, suggest equally plausible cases. It is this conflict between two (or more) well argued positions that gets us closer to the truth. This is how the climate scientists achieve their consensus (not with venal conspiracy), and how every major advance in scholarship has developed for at least 2½ millennia.
It works, not simply because there are different interpretations, but because their difference is derived chiefly from careful observation, reflection and debate. This is not to say that scientists and philosophers, for example, do not have prejudices. However, they freely, and with some goodwill, try to reveal and challenge these prejudices, with the help of others.
When the media promote "two sides", and one side is unqualified or uninformed, they are encouraging these prejudices. While giving the impression of radical controversy, they are in fact keeping the conversation safe, without the constant and sometimes exhausting to-and-fro that marks genuine intellectual inquiry. Sometimes this show is for entertainment, such as a panel of celebrities offering quips. Sometimes it is simple ideological promotion, for profit and political dominance, such as businessmen doing what's good for business (in the short term at least). Either way, what looks like balance is in fact an appeal to its contrary: the comfortable bent that resists correction.
The point is not that we desperately need censorship; that non-compliant ideas or language must be criminalised. The point is not that expertise guarantees certainty - quite the contrary, as professional scholars are often more aware of complicating nuance. The point is that, while there are indeed many takes on every story, some are not worth listening to, even for giggles. And if we find ourselves saying "well, there are two sides" in an argument, it might be time to stop talking and do our homework in silence.
Damon Young is a Melbourne philosopher.
