I'm saying you need to look at an issue and the people involved and actually form an opinion sometimes. Not every issue can be split down the middle. An extreme

I'm saying you need to look at an issue and the people involved and actually form an opinion sometimes. Not every issue can be split down the middle. An extreme example from US history would be slavery. Most issues are going to have much more nuance than that, but there's usually a better course of action. The Economist has never been just 'straight up journalism', so I expect them to have an informed opinion. Maybe I disagree with it in some cases, and that's fine, but I find this "on one hand... on the other hand" stuff where they go out of their way to dig up something to say for both sides insufferable.