Inhaltsanalysen über die Darstellung von Konflikten in den Medien werden häufig durchgeführt, um den Vorwurf der Einseitigkeit empirisch zu überprüfen. Dies wirft die normative Frage auf, wie die Forderung nach einer ausgewogenen Bewertung, d. h. einer Gleichverteilung positiver und negativer Bewertungen zwischen Kontrahenten, als Qualitätsmaßstab rechtfertigt werden kann und wie dies fallbezogen, d. h. kontextabhängig geschehen muss. Diese Frage wird am Beispiel von Inhaltsanalysen zum russischen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine diskutiert. In einer qualitativen Metastudie von 22 Inhaltsanalysen wurden zunächst induktiv acht Annahmen zur Rechtfertigung der Anwendung des Maßstabs für diesen Fall ermittelt. Vier davon beziehen sich auf das Verhältnis der Medien zu ihrer Umwelt: zur journalistischen Profession, der Medien untereinander sowie zum Publikum und zur Politik. Vier weitere Begründungen sind vom Verhältnis der Medien zum Krieg als Thema abgeleitet: zum normativ „richtigen“ und „falschen“ Handeln der Kontrahenten, zur Antizipation negativer Folgen, zum Framing des Kriegs als Machtkonflikt (statt als Konflikt um Werte) und aus der Position des Werterelativismus. Die Forderung nach einer ausgewogenen Bewertung war in den Studien häufig mit der Kritik an einer angeblich zu negativen Sicht der russischen Seite verknüpft. Die Diskussion der Fundstellen zeigt, dass die Argumente zur Rechtfertigung einer ausgewogenen Bewertung für den vorliegenden Fall nur begrenzt oder gar nicht tauglich sind. Damit kann die Studie zeigen, dass das Problem der „False Balance“ nicht nur im Bereich des Wissens, sondern auch des Wertens zu finden ist. Außerdem ist „False Balance“ damit nicht nur ein Phänomen im Journalismus, sondern auch in der Wissenschaft.
Content analyses of the presentation of conflicts in the media are often conducted to empirically examine the accusation of one-sidedness. This raises the question of how the demand for a balanced assessment, i.e. an equal distribution of positive and negative ratings between opponents, can be legitimized as a quality standard. This question is discussed using the example of 22 content analyses of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. This expands research on “false balance” in two ways: Firstly, it criticizes the previous approach of presenting an untenable minority position as a matter of knowledge in the media in order to comply with the journalistic standard of balance, thereby contradicting a high level of scientific evidence and the clear majority of researchers. We expand the research by applying the concept of false balance not only to the presentation of conflicting factual claims, but also to the distribution of opposing assessments in conflicts. We question whether the proportions of positive and negative assessments must be balanced in a conflict. Secondly, the analysis of “false balance” is extended beyond journalism to science, specifically to content analyses of war reporting. This involves checking whether justifications for using the quality standard “balanced assessment” are justified.
The topic chosen was Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. In recent years, it has been repeatedly claimed in public and in communication science research that leading German media outlets have been one-sidedly evaluating events to the advantage of the West and to the disadvantage of Russia. In a qualitative meta-study of 22 content analyses, eight assumptions were inductively determined to justify the application of the standard in this case. They cover the period from 2013 to 2022 and include both the beginnings of the conflict, such as the annexation of Crimea, and the escalation of the war from February 2022. The selected studies were evaluated according to the qualitative procedure of propositional inventory, which is used to systematically take stock of scientific research. Eight assumptions identified in the studies to justify the demand for a “balanced assessment” are critically examined:
Assumption 1. Journalistic norm of balance: The assumption that journalism should be principally neutral and therefore balanced is untenable. Rather, journalism should weigh differently when a clear assignment of the perpetrator and victim role is possible.
Assumption 2. Relationship between the media: It is also expected of leading media that they should assess in a balanced way. However, this does not accord to their distinct function in the process of public opinion formation, which is based on a division of labor. They participate in the discourse when the diversity of opinions has already been examined and reduced. In doing so, they pursue a certain “editorial line”.
Assumption 3. Media and audience: Some studies claim that the media should reflect the distribution of opinions in the population. However, this claim is problematic because media should contribute to opinion formation and not just mirror existing opinions.
Assumption 4. Media and politics: The assumption that the media evaluate in line with the government is seen by some studies as an indication of political influence. However, this alignment between the media and politics can also be the result of shared values.
Assumption 5. Reality of the war: Some studies assume an equal distribution of normatively “right” and “wrong” actions by the warring parties. However, we argue that contemporary historical research on Eastern Europe clearly distinguishes between aggressor and defender.
Assumption 6. Anticipation of consequences: It is often argued that one-sided reporting on the war could have negative consequences, such as an increasing escalation. This assumption is not substantiated. Rather, the call not to name the guilty party as a strategy of appeasement leads to overlooking injustice.
Assumption 7. Framing of the war: Some studies criticize the fact that Western media frame the war as a moral conflict and demonize Russia. They see it as a pure power conflict. Here, too, contemporary historical research on Eastern Europe comes to a different conclusion.
Assumption 8. Value relativism: We reject the assumption, put forward in some studies, that all value systems are equal. We argue against value relativism and make a normative distinction between the legitimacy of authoritarian and democratic systems.
The discussion of the eight assumptions used to justify the call for a balanced assessment shows that this quality criterion must not be applied in a context-blind manner. This speaks against quality research that proceeds purely deductively, without taking into account the special conditions of a topic. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is a fundamental turning point (“Zeitenwende”) to review and adjust the use of normative standards in war reporting. In sum, the study shows that the problem of “false balance” is not only to be found in the area of knowledge, but also in that of values. Moreover, “false balance” is not only a phenomenon in journalism, but also in science.
