This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news sou

This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news source at all meaningfully. Perhaps a different term would be better, but when I say I think they're more neutral, it's because they use fewer "weasel words"/phrases, very clearly delineate between their core factual stories and their opinion/analysis pieces, and feature fewer sensationalist pieces without significant hard-fact backing. Again, what you say is reasonable, but doesn't apply in the context I was replying to the parent's statement in.