[John Timmer writing for Ars Technica about Fox News’ practice of ‘false balance’, which in this case takes NOAA’s weather data to task](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/):
>What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn’t draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. It’s a classic example of false balance, allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality.
False balance is a result of not wanting to ever be wrong. I don’t think this is at all about presenting more balance — no I think this is about covering your own ass. If every time I said something really sucks, I hedged with saying that some really like it and that updates could make it not suck, I’d be doing the same thing as Fox.
If I did that every time I made a definitive statement then no one could ever say I was wrong, because in actuality I never really said anything important to begin with.
[It’s like reviews on *The Verge*](http://curiousrat.com/home/2013/1/14/perspective-on-web-journalism).