The time has come to take a balanced view of balance. Balance, in the sense of objectivity, like history, is bunk. It is, certainly, the only interpretation of balance for reporters, whose role is to present the facts and nothing but the facts. That is their job description: in the face of pressure, doggedly and unswervingly to pursue objectivity.
But in the real world of politics, commentary and entertainment, objectivity is for sitters on the fence. Balance is for the on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand breed of newspaper editorialists who are expected to face towards Beijing, Mecca, Jerusalem or Lower Albert Road, bang their foreheads on the earth and mutter the mantra 'Objectivity, Objectivity, Objectivity' five times a day.
Real Men don't practise objectivity. Objectivity is for wimps and straight men.
Balance, for politicians, is something different entirely. It is the art of weighing the pros and cons carefully, and then dispensing with objectivity and coming down on the side of the argument most likely to suit a particular political agenda.
It is no accident that the French word balancer means to hurl or to chuck out.
Balance for satirists is different again. It is the art of weighing the pros and cons carefully and then coming down on whatever side of the argument is most likely to annoy the politicians.