A fair interpretation of a volatile topic

If you have a space you want to fill with people, your best bet nowadays is to announce some kind of decision about coal mining.

Tuesday’s borough assembly resolution was not binding in any way on any party. It was really just a piece of advice, the assembly giving its two-cents to state officials tasked with deciding whether to renew Usibelli Coal Mine’s permit to mine at Wishbone Hill between Palmer and Sutton.

If you weren’t at the meeting and just listened to the streaming audio of it online, you would be forgiven for thinking opinion on the matter is evenly split in the borough.

Whether by design or otherwise, the structure of the meeting necessarily left that impression. Attendees were asked to sign up to speak either for or against the mine and Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss took turns reading names from each list.

While we could give our opinion of the mine, we haven’t come here today to condemn or endorse it. We’ve come here to talk about what DeVilbiss said was an attempt at fairness.

In our younger days at journalism school we learned that in news reporting we are to give an equal airing to opposing viewpoints. Fairness in reporting requires giving an equal chance for all sides to be heard.

But our professors stressed that an equal chance does not mean an identical amount of news copy. You can give one side a sentence and another a paragraph and still have done justice to both sides.

Indeed, sometimes giving both sides equal space in a story is putting a thumb on the scale. Being fair to the reader means accurately reporting on meetings and events. If one person were to speak against a topic and 20 in favor, the notion of “equal space” would not be an accurate reflection of the meeting or event.

We believe that whether he put it there accidentally or otherwise, DeVilbiss’ thumb was on the scale Tuesday. In giving equal time to both sides he gave the impression that equal numbers showed up on both sides. That was not the case.

For better or worse, those opposed to the mine had a greater representation at Tuesday’s meeting.

That was apparent to anyone who attended and bothered to compare the number of orange anti-coal T-shirts to the number of yellow pro-coal hard hats. Or, to those who stayed long enough to see an informal show of hands in which anti-coal attendees easily outnumbered pro-coal attendees.

Assemblyman Warren Keogh said the number of emails he’d received on the issue was also weighted towards the anti-coal side. The anti-coal emails were more than double the pro-coal ones.

Of course, none of that is scientific. To get those responses require people attend meetings or send emails, and they are really only a gauge of passion. It could well be that many Valley residents favor mining but don’t have the time, inclination or passion to express that opinion publicly.

But knowing which side is more passionate is an important piece of information that DeVilbiss’ attempt at fairness obscured.