Is It Best To Write Objectively Or Balanced

Whether it is best to write objectively or balanced is a question many journalists and news stations have encountered and discussed. When it comes down to it, the reason this question is so widely debated is because it is a matter of opinion. I believe it is best to strive to write objectively. My opinion was formed after research involving definitions, news stories, and finally the pros and cons to both balance and objectivity.
One aspect that journalist’s admire about writing objectivity is that it allows for them to avoid a bad reputation. Writing objectively forces a journalist to put aside all preconceptions, biases, prejudices, values, and interpretations. By doing this, a journalist can focus on just the facts about one side of a story and these facts can allow for the reader to form their own opinions.
In theory, objectivity sounds great, but in reality it is nearly impossible. This is because all humans, including journalists, form their own opinions and beliefs, and when a

On the other hand, some cases only have one side to the story. Sharing information from the other perspective can be compared to “spreading lies” especially when there is no evidence to back up the other side (Barry D). This can create false balance which is defined as the “journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side (Sullivan, M.).” Therefore false balance can create controversies when there is only legitimate evidence to support the truth. For example several news stations tried to create balance by representing the portion of the public that believed Obama wasn’t born in the United States. Despite the proof of a Hawaiian birth certificate, the false news continued on and on. If there had been an objective approach to the controversy, there wouldn’t have been such a large spread of false