When a news organization insists that a reporter show no bias, what it’s really saying is: “Hide what you believe.” It’s often equivalent to an order to lie by omission.

So-called “balance” is as dishonest as so-called “objectivity.” “Balanced” reporting often requires a reporter to treat two points of view on a topic as mere opinion, no matter how much evidence shows one to be fact and the other, fiction.

When I visit Europe, where my family resides, I’m often taken aback by the blatantly expressed opinions of many journalists. In a way, however, I like the idea of ‘what you see is what you get’. I don’t have to sit and wonder the writer’s true intentions or biases. I find it interesting that my parents are consistently most impressed by the opinion-driven Week in Review-section of the Times.

As this guide says in previous sections, a journalist should be calling as many sources from different viewpoints as possible. But as reporting progresses, the journalist may determine that one viewpoint is not valid or even untrue.

The “he said, she said” approach is bad journalism because the reporter isn’t showing how much credence each person has – and whether they are backed up by numbers, previous articles, other sources, or documents.

For each claim, the other side should be given a chance to respond, but it isn’t a journalist’s responsibility to trust the other side if they are unwilling to back themselves up.

If a spokesperson denies something, they should also have provide a transcript of a meeting, documents, or additional interviews with members of the organization to verify their statement. The less they are willing to do, the less prominence they should have in the story.