The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rar

The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rarely lies between the two big parties. Often it's outside them entirely, or way out on the fringe of one of them. Sometimes one side's perspective really is correct and the other is wrong. Sometimes either side's solution to a problem would likely be fine, though they conflict and a balance between them would not work. Sometimes one side has a mountain of evidence behind them and the other has a tiny amount of evidence, some anecdotes, and alternative plans based mostly on speculation (cough the healthcare debate). For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate. Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other. Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.