Africa Growth Pilot/Online self-paced course/Module 3/Avoiding undue weight - part 1

The fourth and last broad principle before we get to the exercises is to *avoid undue weight*. Avoid undue weight. To give the best quick example of what we mean, look at this sentence:

"Some people consider the Earth to be round; others consider it to be flat." This is a factual sentence. I hope you will agree it is factually correct: Some people do consider the earth to be round and others do consider it to be flat, right? This is factually true.

Is it a *neutral* sentence? Is it neutral to say "some people consider the Earth to be round, others consider it to be flat"? I suggest to you that it is *not* neutral. It is not neutral, *even though* it is factually correct. It's a true sentence that isn't a neutral way of presenting information, because it implies that "some say round, some say flat, who knows? Fifty-fifty." Right? Which is of course not the case.

The people who think the Earth is flat are *a tiny fringe* of humankind. The vast majority of humankind, of all backgrounds and beliefs, accept the easily observed fact that the Earth is round. It's proven by science. It's proven by mathematics. It's proven by literal physical observations from space. So to say "some say it's round; some say it's flat, who knows?" is absolutely *actively misleading* the reader. This misleading is what we mean when we say "undue weight". Undue weight is just a fancy way of saying we're giving something more space or more importance than it deserves.

Now, shouldn't we mention at all that some people think the Earth is flat? Perhaps we should, because that's an opinion that exists and a large number of people want to look it up. Maybe it should be mentioned, but writing an article where half the article is about how the Earth is round, and then the other half is about how it is flat is, again, giving too much weight, *undeserved* weight, to the idea, the easily-disproven idea, the *fringe opinion*, that the Earth is flat. We shouldn't do that.

What about this nuance? Look at this middle paragraph: "Earth is the third planet from the sun. Most people think the Earth is spherical, but more and more people are of the opinion that the Earth is actually flat." What about this sentence? It's not like the first. It does acknowledge that most people think that the Earth is spherical. So is that a neutral sentence?

By the way, this sentence is also factually true. It is *factually true* that there is a growth in the number of people who think the Earth is flat. More and more people are indeed of the opinion that the Earth is flat. Is this a *neutral* sentence? Not neutral, you say in the chat. Why? Why is it not neutral? What's the problem here? It does acknowledge the majority opinion. What is the problem here with presenting information in this way? Well, first of all, it talks about the shape of the Earth as though it *were* a question of opinion.

But is it a question of opinion? The shape of the Earth is an observable, measurable phenomenon, so only reporting about what people *think* is already doing a disservice to our readers. We're taking something that is a *fact*, that can be observed, and presenting it as though it's a question of opinions, as though it's something that people are legitimately disagreeing about, like a political conflict. But that isn't the case. This is a physical fact. So just mentioning that most people think this, and some people think that is itself not enough because it is presenting a *fact* as a matter of *opinion*. So that's one problem with this sentence.

The other problem with this sentence is the implication, in the part that says "more and more people are of the opinion that the Earth is actually flat". When you say "most people think the Earth is spherical, *but more and more* people are of the opinion that the earth is *actually flat*", you are inviting the reader to think: "hey, it's true that most people think the earth is round, but *more and more* people are coming around, are discovering the *truth* that the earth is *actually flat*". That's the winning team, that's gaining momentum! And it suggests to the reader, "be smart, be like the people who are gradually coming to the opinion that the earth is flat!" It's manipulative and it's not neutral, and it's also a way of, what they call "lying with statistics":

Even if it's true that more and more people are of that opinion (which is kind of a sad fact about scientific education in general), if 7 billion people think the Earth is round, and in the last ten years, instead of, say, a thousand people who think the Earth is flat, there are now *fifty* thousand people who think the Earth is flat -- that's "more and more people", but it's still a *tiny* amount of people! It's still a *fringe opinion*! And in that sense, this sentence is manipulative and giving too much weight, *undue weight*, to a fringe opinion without *revealing* that it is a fringe opinion. Had we had numbers here, that would have been half as bad. If it said, say, "99.9% of humanity thinks the Earth is round, but there are, whatever, 100,000 people who think the Earth is flat", that would have been arguably factual. It's still not okay to just not mention that there is a scientific *fact* in here. Not just a question of opinion, but at least the numbers would have given us true proportions.

So in summary, even if you're strictly factual, 100% truthful, you can still create *undue weight* by the depth or quantity or the placement of detail that you choose. These are some of the most nuanced aspects of neutrality, that are sometimes hard to get right, but I wanted to cover them as well.