By Ben Buckley
Photos by Ben Buckley

Here’s a hypothetical scenario for you. Three people named A, B and C are talking. Person A says, “The sky is blue.” Person B says, “You’re wrong! I know for a fact that the sky is yellow!” Person C steps in and says, “Guys, guys, let’s be calm and rational about this! Let’s just compromise and agree that the sky is green.” Do you see what’s wrong with this picture?

The answer: Any statement that’s halfway between true and false isn’t “kind of” true, it’s just false. But often, well-meaning people — including journalists — attempt to avoid controversy on an issue by presenting a moderate point of view, somewhere between two or more extremes.

Before I go on, I will make a few distinctions. Sometimes, there is a good reason not to come down firmly on one side of an issue; if a person doesn’t know enough to make a decision on some issue, then it’s perfectly legitimate to avoid allying with any side. This would be like Person C in our scenario saying, “I haven’t looked closely at the sky or read the scientific literature on the subject, so I’m going to avoid getting into this discussion for now.”

It’s also legitimate, when writing about a controversial subject, to attempt to describe the various positions from a neutral point of view in order to inform the audience rather than persuade them. An example relating to our previous scenarios would be: “Out of all those surveyed, 50 per cent claim that the sky is blue, and 50 per cent claim that the sky is yellow.”

What I am criticizing is the idea that, if a person takes a position somewhere between the extremes of some debate, then they have somehow transcended the need to base their position in facts. Sometimes, the best position in a controversy really does lie “between” the other positions. The middle ground is still a position, as open to criticism as any other, and needs to be based in facts and reason. You cannot defend a belief purely on the basis that it’s inoffensive.

If your goal is to have beliefs that do not offend, you are doomed to failure. To be honest, I don’t find words like “extremist” or “moderate” to be very meaningful. At best, they’re only useful relative to a particular time and place. If you believe the Earth revolves around the sun, that slavery is bad, and that women should have the right to vote, one could argue that you’re already an extreme heliocentrist, abolitionist, and suffragist, whether you realize it or not.

Your worldview could offend countless people throughout history, and in some parts of the world today. I’m not saying this to argue in favour of moral relativism: quite the opposite, in fact. When you have good reason to believe that something is true or good, you should say it without diluting it in order to look more moderate. After all, what would you believe if you were only a moderate abolitionist? That slavery is only sometimes bad?

Neutrality has its place in journalism, but it’s important to remember the real world doesn’t contain any actual “neutral” facts. What’s true is true, no matter how popular or unpopular the truth may be.