I wasn't clear. Instead: >reassuring to see more writing that refuses to see all sides of every debate as equally valid Treating "balance" like an implicit go

I wasn't clear. Instead: >reassuring to see more writing that refuses to see all sides of every debate as equally valid Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I don't think there are many, if any, industry experts who believe that a policy mandating weaker encryption wouldn't cause far, far more harm than good. And yet, it seems like most of the time we see these trainwrecks proceed, with coverage portraying both sides as equally valid and advocates for both as acting in good faith.