She was arguing that it is NOT fair or reasonable or sensible just to mindlessly and automatically presume that "both sides" of EVERY dispute simply MUST be given air time, and equal attention - and likened it to a need to make room for the Flat Earth Society to weigh in, every time we do a report about NASA. Some viewpoints are NOT WORTH IT. Both sides do not always carry or merit equal weight or equal treatment, and certainly not equal validation. And certainly not deserving of being reinforced by giving it face time on TV! It's irritating for me as a retired journalist to see the ridiculous extremes that too many reporters and editors and interviewers pursue in the name of supposed "impartiality." Just bring both sides in, let 'em say their piece, and then, VOILA! You've "covered" the issue adequately. And that's all that's required. You say tomato and I say tomah-to and let's call the whole thing off. It's freakin' LAZY. Note that it also does NOT involve any checking or questioning or challenging of opinions that are just flat-out bullshit, as those which most of what the teabaggers and republi-CONS present these days. You let 'em spout and you've done your job - they've had their say and that's that.
And you have thus served your listenership/viewership/readership NOT AT ALL.
No wonder we have a good case of stupid running rampant through the US. I wonder about that poll that shows what a majority of Louisiana republi-CONS believe about where to lay the blame for the Hurricane Katrina response - and so many of them actually blamed Obama - who wasn't in office til 2009, almost four years after Katrina struck. I wonder if ANY of the pollsters taking that input bothered to stop anybody and do a reality check with them. 
Yeah, didn't think so.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
