Interpreting "objective" to mean "fairly representing both sides" is a large part of what got american media so fucked in the first place. If one side says coo

Interpreting "objective" to mean "fairly representing both sides" is a large part of what got american media so fucked in the first place. If one side says cook at home as much as possible for your family to be healthy, and the other side says go down to the ditch and drink the pond scum, what are you doing by representing both sides there? One of the important duties of journalism is making editorial decisions that drinking pond scum isn't a balanced opposition to cooking dinner. Journalist practice for decades has been going incredibly far out of its way to find an alternative "side" for any perspective that's presented. They then do a lot of work for them making it seem as reasonable and mainstream as possible. This is exactly how you get fringe reactionary political views elevated to the level of national concern.