5 ms·

> What balance are you talking about? It’s not as complicated as you’re making out. If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read

• Redoubts 5y ago
  > If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good. Can you not read two articles, and do this yourself?
  • chrisseaton 5y ago
    That’s not very efficient is it and since they’re written separately they don’t directly address each other’s points.
• foerbert 5y ago
  You say it like it's so easy. It's not. The reality is many (maybe even most?) articles - even ones from incredibly openly biased sources - do this. It's often difficult to make many meaningful attacks on a proposed law without mentioning what the intent is. Unless it's one of a few already highly-covered issues with fundamentally irreconcilable subjective issues where you can pretty much recall all that context with a few words... you have to say what the heck the proponents of the law say it'll do to actually attack it. However you don't seem to find that balanced. I don't blame you. I don't either. The problem is the arguments made cannot be equal. They are not the same thing. Even a good faith attempt to make a completely neutral article will very often fall short. Even if the author thinks they did not, others will. The only 'balance' you can really have is a false equivalence where nothing matters because it's all the same anyway - so why even write an article? It doesn't matter what happens.