I support journalists making an effort to present both sides even if one side is unreasonable, because the alternative is they just decide for me what I should and should not be exposed to. That, to me, is much much worse.
Time cube Chemtrails Flat earth Lizard people Heavens Gate Time wave theory Etc.
Should we give them equal time? Why not?
The standard I advocate for is for journalists to make an effort to present both sides. There will always be a level of editorializing and they will get it wrong from time to time, but at least they are committed to the principle and there is underlying respect for the audience to make up their own mind.
Not like what OP and you are advocating for - where you want the media to make decisions for you what you may or may no hear because god forbid the media 'platforms' someone that may actually change your mind.
So let me ask you because I am curious: What is your limiting principle? At what point do YOU stop delegating to some doofus anchor what you should and shouldn't be exposed to?
Seems pretty simple to me.
You're conflating some issues here. Experts inform policy, not set policy. Democratically elected representatives should use experts but not delegate decision making to experts. Take climate change, even if 100% of scientist believe in climate change and certain outcomes of climate change, because any climate mitigations are going to drastically impact my life and the lives of all my fellow-citizens, I sure as heck want to hear alternatives and understand the full implications. I don't want climate scientists deciding climate policy (only informing it), because the cost for stemming climate change may be too high and when balancing all the other factors, we may instead decide instead to focus on mitigating the effects of climate change.
We see this with Coronavirus policy as well. Certain public health officials only focus on stemming the pandemic (a noble goal in a vacuum), but ignore the cost associated with some of the drastic measures to stem the pandemic (like lockdowns). Put another way, even if every single epidemiologist argues that lockdown is the best way to 'flatten the curve', we may decide to do something else because we need to balance all kinds of other factors in addition to 'flattening the curve'. The Great Barrington Declaration [1], for example, which presents an alterative coronavirus policy by all kinds of public health officials makes this case and has been censored by Twitter, and others, for it. Don't you think their point of view is a worthy topic for discussion? Or is this one of those things where you are afraid of 'platforming' an alternative lest it convinces some people?
The standard I advocate for is for journalists to make an effort to present both sides. There will always be a level of editorializing and they will get it wrong from time to time, but at least they are committed to the principle and there is underlying respect for the audience to make up their own mind.
Not like what you seem to advocating for - where you want the media to make the decisions for you to what you're exposed to .. because god forbid the media 'platforms' someone that may actually change your mind.
So let me ask you because I am curious: What is your limiting principle? At what point do YOU stop delegating to some doofus anchor what you should and shouldn't be exposed to?
It's irrelevant to on-demand content delivery methods like the internet, where you can carry everything at once.