The paper concerns a tension between two central journalistic ideals: That of presenting diverse viewpoints (Balanced Reporting) and that of presenting the most reliable testimony (Reliable Reporting). While both of these ideals are valuable, they may be in tension. This is particularly so when it comes to scientific testimony. Thus, we face a hard question:

The Question of Balance

            How to balance Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting in public scientific testimony?

The present paper contributes substantive proposals in a manner that introduces the important empirical literature to the philosophy of science. Specifically, I will articulate and evaluate strategies for balancing Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting. I argue that some strategies are too radical whereas others have considerable limitations. On this basis, I set forth a general guideline for science reporting and argue that it may help addressed The Question of Balance by rearticulating both Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting.