That’s like saying spheres aren't real because no perfect sphere exists. I think objectively exploring the merits of both sides of an argument is possible, and in many cases laudable.
I’m not saying all arguments on every issue are made in good faith or are worth exploring, and of course some things are simply facts. I’m also not condemning editorials where a writer is expected to try and persuade. However, I do think there is merit in a form of journalism that summarizes the strongest arguments on both sides of an issue in dispute, rather than simply picking one side and running with it.
> That’s like saying spheres aren't real because no perfect sphere exists.
This analogy is deeply flawed. For spheres, we at least have some kind of mathematical model for what a sphere would be. For a “neutral point of view”, we don’t even have a good intuitive model for what that would look like, at least, not one that withstands a little bit of scrutiny.
There are simply opinions that are not worth the time to summarize or compare. I am not going to give my attention to a journalist who takes a serious look at holocaust denial conspiracies and tries to write about "both sides" of the equation in a neutral way.
I’m not saying all arguments on every issue are made in good faith or are worth exploring, and of course some things are simply facts. I’m also not condemning editorials where a writer is expected to try and persuade. However, I do think there is merit in a form of journalism that summarizes the strongest arguments on both sides of an issue in dispute, rather than simply picking one side and running with it.