Presenting two "sides" of an issue as equally credible when the evidence strongly favors one — creating the false impression of genuine scientific or factual uncertainty where little exists.
For decades, tobacco companies funded and cited fringe scientists who disputed the smoking-cancer link, allowing journalists to write "some scientists say smoking causes cancer; others dispute this finding." The appearance of a scientific debate was manufactured. The same playbook was later used for leaded gasoline, climate science, and other settled questions.
"Hear both sides" is a genuine virtue in contested matters — which makes it exploitable in uncontested ones. When audiences see a debate format, they assume genuine uncertainty. The journalistic instinct toward balance is legitimate; its abuse involves treating manufactured dissent as equivalent to scientific consensus.
"Some experts say X, while others say Y" framing — especially when one of those groups is heavily funded by parties with financial interests in the outcome, or represents a small minority of relevant researchers.