The interesting thing here, of course, is how many big names in journalism are starting to question whether current (as opposed to, say, 50-60 years ago) standa

The interesting thing here, of course, is how many big names in journalism are starting to question whether current (as opposed to, say, 50-60 years ago) standards of "neutral" reporting are really all that neutral, since they've begun to realize that the push to just dispassionately report every side of something led to mainstream media outlets becoming the largest provider of free advertising -- to none other than Trump -- in American political history. To put it in context: there's a story I've heard once or twice about Walter Cronkite, during the JFK administration. JFK supported a bill to provide funding to the state of Alaska to construct mental health facilities, of which the state had (at the time) none, and a few of the more out-there Republicans who opposed him spun this into a conspiracy theory that JFK was secretly building Soviet-style gulags in Alaska, and would deport all his political enemies there once construction was finished (a sort of precursor to today's allegations the FEMA is a front for (insert Democratic president here)'s secret labor camps for his/her enemies). Cronkite supposedly refused to dignify the allegations with any kind of airtime, knowing that the mere act of mentioning the JFK-labor-camp stuff on a national news broadcast would implicitly legitimize it.