Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does Jessica Tarlov's 'both sides' argument relate to current political discourse?
Executive Summary
Jessica Tarlov’s “both sides” framing has been invoked in recent commentary to urge parity in assigning responsibility across the political spectrum, and critics argue it masks asymmetries in behavior and risk. Reporting and research provided alongside commentary show a contested terrain: television pundits and partisan polling are used to both defend and attack the heuristic, while scholars point to media dynamics that complicate simple equivalence [1] [2] [3].
1. What people are actually claiming when they say “both sides” — a quick harvest of key claims
Coverage and commentary present two central claims about the “both sides” argument. One claim frames it as a call for symmetrical accountability: political actors and media should recognize wrongdoing or extremism on both the left and right rather than singling out one side (implied across sources). The opposing claim contends that invoking symmetry can function as a rhetorical absolution of one side by overly emphasizing parity even where empirical indicators—such as claims about political violence—allegedly tilt toward one side. The TV critique by Greg Gutfeld exemplifies this deployment [1].
2. How media commentators used the argument in a recent on-air clash
A notable flashpoint occurred on cable news where Greg Gutfeld criticized Jessica Tarlov’s appeal to “both sides,” arguing the problem is primarily left-wing and citing a recent shooting at an ICE facility plus a YouGov poll purportedly showing liberals are more likely to endorse political violence [1]. That exchange frames “both sides” as politically partisan ammunition: one host uses it to demand even-handedness while the other interprets it as naïve or misleading given recent events. The segment illustrates how television amplifies individual disputes into broader normative claims about accountability.
3. Where the government shutdown talks fit — practical bipartisanship versus rhetorical symmetry
Reporting on emerging bipartisan negotiations over a government shutdown shows another register of the phrase: “both sides” as pragmatic cooperation. Senators negotiating funding and policy illustrate an operational use of symmetry—both parties must compromise to avert disruption in services—contrasting with the rhetorical use on cable shows that centers blame and moral equivalence [2]. This difference highlights that in legislative practice, “both sides” often signals mutual responsibility and shared problem-solving rather than moral equivalence in wrongdoing.
4. What academic and media research say about the usefulness of “both sides” framing
Scholarly work on media effects and polarization signals caution about simple symmetry claims. Research on partisan media exposure finds that news ecosystems shape perceptions of polarization and can inflate the sense that both sides are equivalently extreme, even when objective measures differ [4]. Analysis of traditional and social media dynamics argues that polarized outlets and misinformation contribute to perceptions of equivalence that may not align with underlying behavioral trends [3]. These studies show the framing can reflect media structure rather than balanced empirical reality.
5. Evidence gaps and what sources omit when debating “both sides”
The commentary invoking polls or incidents frequently lacks context about methodology, baseline rates, or comparative behavior over time. For example, the on-air reference to a YouGov poll and an ICE-facility shooting uses specific incidents to justify broad claims without presenting full poll details or trend data [1]. Likewise, the bipartisan shutdown coverage focuses on negotiation dynamics but does not resolve whether responsibility for the shutdown rests more heavily with one party. Omitted measurement details leave conclusions about symmetry underdetermined.
6. Competing agendas shaping how “both sides” is weaponized or defended
Each source carries an evident agenda: cable pundits seek sharp takeaways and tribal reinforcement, legislative coverage emphasizes compromise and process, and scholars prioritize systematic evidence about media effects [1] [2] [3]. These agendas influence what counts as decisive proof: a pundit cites a poll to score a talking-point victory, lawmakers highlight mutual concessions to advance governance, and researchers flag structural drivers that make parity claims misleading. Recognizing these motivations clarifies why parties talk past one another.
7. Practical implications for public discourse and civic institutions
When “both sides” becomes a dominant framing, it can either foster shared accountability or enable obfuscation depending on context. In media cycles, symmetry claims can dampen appetite for targeted reforms by creating an impression of equal culpability, whereas in governance contexts, reciprocal responsibility can be necessary for crisis resolution [2] [3]. Evaluating which effect prevails requires careful attention to empirical indicators, survey design, and incident comparators—elements often missing in rapid TV back-and-forths [1].
8. Bottom line: a cautious, evidence-first reading of the “both sides” claim
The available materials show that the “both sides” argument operates as both a normative prescription and a rhetorical tool; it is invoked to demand fairness in blame and to resist one-sided narratives, but it can also be deployed selectively to absolve. Given the mix of anecdote-driven commentary, practical legislative cooperation, and scholarly warnings about media-driven perceptions, the most defensible stance is context-dependent: treat symmetry claims as hypotheses requiring empirical validation rather than definitive conclusions [1] [2] [4] [3].