I'm not certain that is always true. I, for one, would like to know a few things about flat earthers. Do they actually exist? How many of them really are out t

I'm not certain that is always true. I, for one, would like to know a few things about flat earthers. Do they actually exist? How many of them really are out there? What arguments to they use to try and make their points? These are valuable things to know, especially on issues that mostly settled. They make you, the reader, better understand the issue and better prepared to deal with people you encounter who hold this belief. I'm not Neil Armstrong, I don't have the cache to simply punch moon landing deniers in the nose, I need some true facts to use when talking to one. As a consumer of journalism I'm way more interested in stuff like that than simple sneering scorn about people who clearly believe "wrong" things. When it comes to topics that I don't personally understand, perhaps wheat tariffs, I'm going to be way more likely to agree to the "right" answer when I understand both sides and can see how exactly it is that the "wrong" side is wrong. But the very minute I find out that the story is being spun by omitting certain facts or arguments, I'm going to assume the author is lying about pretty much everything. Thus, neutrality. You've got to show me both sides honestly for me to be able to believe that what you're saying is actual truth, not just your "truth".