Balance (n.) in reporting appears exactly where business is split; challenge business as such and you quickly find you are no longer a journalist.
Balance (n.) can be a boilerplate line in news reporting, kicking in at odd intervals past the story's halfway mark, as if by software.
Balance (n.) is offered by the media that succeed — both sides presented, provided both stay inside the narrow consensus of the powerful.
Balance (n.) is proved, for the media, by being attacked from both sides — no one need check whether either attack is true.
Balance (n.) can mean, in a wartime editorial, blaming the besieged city and the army shelling it in equal measure.
Balance (n.) of a special kind lets you side with the president that the North invaded, or with Ho that it liberated, but not consider that your own country invaded.
Balance (n.) taken literally would have meant photographs of peaceful English villages on the day Coventry was bombed.
Balance (n.) in a debate can misinform: setting the alarmists against the skeptics hides the experts who think the consensus too cautious.
Balance (n.) is a doctrine invoked when concentrated private power is at stake, and abandoned elsewhere.