If you haven't read it already, check out City Pages' recent article on PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame. It's a great article about a great guy, and we couldn't be happier for PZ.

One part of the article that was of particular interest to us was the chronicled exchange between PZ and journalist Chris Mooney:

Myers's question for Mooney was simple: Why is so much science journalism so bad? The journalistic imperative of "balance," Mooney replied, has no parallel in the world of science. Consequently, the media's formulaic use of "he said/she said" reporting often generates a false sense of controversy about matters that scientists overwhelmingly count as settled.

We like PZ's question, and Mooney's answer is certainly on the money...but it led us to ponder a follow-up question: exactly why must there be an "imperative of balance" in journalism? We feel the same way regarding this issue that we feel about differing viewpoints in general — that is, fair play and egalitarianism should certainly apply to people and their feelings, but by no means must there be an "imperative" to provide such privileges to beliefs and opinions.

When journalists report on a fire in an apartment building, and the resultant deaths, the facts that are best supported by the evidence — the charred remains, smoke, dead bodies with seared flesh — are presented without any "balance." They don't say, "The fire may have been caused by a gas leak and an appliance malfunction on the third floor, though some believe it was caused by a phlogiston imbalance in the air surrounding the building." Any reasonable person (or network executive) would laugh themselves silly, as phlogiston theory has long ago fallen out of favor with the experts on the phenomenon of fire, and the journalist presenting such a report would be out of a job rather quickly. It's a preposterous way to present a news story, because no matter how many Phlogistonists are hanging about, the facts in evidence are as clear as they can be to the folks — like the fire department and forensics experts — who are in the business of knowing those facts.

Yet mainstream journalists think nothing of saying, essentially: "Biochemistry, genetic biology, and the fossil record may explain the origin and development of life on Earth, but some believe that evolutionary theory is a conspiracy and an unspecified entity is responsible for all life as we know it." The problem: this is just as preposterous as giving "equal time" to Phlogistonism. Creationism has long ago fallen out of favor with the experts on the phenomena of biological origins and development. No matter how many IDiots are hanging about, the facts in evidence are as clear as they can be to the folks who are in the business of knowing those facts — in this case, biologists, paleontologists, and nearly all other competent scientists.

But because of the non-stop bickering from neo-theocratic zealots and a blurry interpretation of the Bill of Rights, certain groups (like religionists) on certain issues (like creationism) get a free pass in the press to present their bullshit as "equal" to scientifically supported facts, without providing any evidence to support their fanciful imaginary propositions. And, supposedly in the interests of "fair and balanced treatment," the mainstream journalists turn a blind eye to this blatant flaw — which is just silly, and in fact unfair and unbalanced, because scientists are being held up to more stringent standards than crackpot zealots.

The Blog Revolution has the potential (like the explosion of cable news networks did) to change the way journalism is done, finally and permanently. By providing a voice to everyone with an opinion, blogs are taking care of that egalitarian imperative just by existing — so the individual bloggers themselves can be journalists who express just one viewpoint, since the blogosphere as a whole will present many and varied opinions. Yes, there will be plenty of bloggers out there (we've seen more than enough of them) whose viewpoints will contradict the facts in evidence, but the hope here — color us cautiously optimistic — is that more and louder voices of reason will, in the end, drown them out. And perhaps such fierce competition is just the kick in the nuts that mainstream journalism needs, so they can wake up to the realization that reporters report facts, and facts are viewpoints that are strongly supported by evidence.

PZ Myers is a journalist — and we do consider him a journalist, a good one — who understands the correlation between evidence and facts, and knows what it takes for an opinion to merit factworthiness; this is probably partly because of his prodigiously grounded scientific background (and partly because he's a smart guy in the first place). And Mike Mosedale of City Pages seems to offer a snarky attitude when presenting the "other side of the debate" from folks like Michael Behe, so that's a gold star for him. Hopefully, what we're witnessing today is a transition in the field of journalism, one that may be painful — as all transitions are — but which will, in the long run, convey an honesty and rationalism sorely lacking in mainstream media today. Bloggers like PZ Myers, and many of our other Usual Suspects, are rediscovering the fascinatingly effective territory of fact-based journalism; let's hope it sticks.