I don't know who this is written for. The people who value the notion of truth already defend it and the ones that don't are destroying it on purpose. Neither side will be swayed by this.
Can't a cigar just be a cigar?
Not in 2023, not really.
We have all woken up to the fact that many people stand (and even more have stood) on the world stage pretending to be “simply stating” when the intent has been to push a narrative or give credibility to specific groups.
I’m adding this rebuttal because it’s fresh in my mind: https://youtu.be/WBxAQYmPHDA (starting 42:28). If you don’t like Neil try to listen to the point he’s making and separate it from him. It’s a point worth at least discussing critically: the intent of a statement is integral to the statement itself.
Factual information has the right to be stated, it's the audience's fault if they're not cogent enough to discern bias and malicious intent.
Your position is a plain defense of censorship and forced interpretation of media, not one that promotes media literacy or individual sovereignty to make up one's mind.
For the record I’d much rather everyone be taught to think critically as a baseline but that’s simply not happening and to not call out bias or intentional influence is to be a bystander (something I choose not to do).