Journalists and “Moral Clarity”

Here’s an article that begins: Objectivity in journalism has come to mean presenting both sides of an argument from a position of neutrality. But not every argument has two sides: some have more, and some statements should not be the subject of argument.

Exactly.  Let’s start with all matters of science.  There is nothing we can do to prevent Facebook posts offering viewpoints on things like climate change and pandemics that stand against the findings of those who have been studying these subject for decades.  Is there any reason they need to appear in journalism?

Of course, the subject of morality and good vs. evil is more subjective than chemistry and physics, but there is no imperative to show support for things like U.S. practices that violate domestic and international law, not to mention human rights.  Here, we could be talking about child separation and incarceration, the president’s incitement of violence, obstruction of justice, soliciting political help from foreign entities, and violations of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause.  These are all categorically wrong; none merits a presentation of “both sides,” simply because there isn’t another side.