[fulafel]

Partial-impartial is a risky mode of thinking, since it can seduce you into thinking that it's good to be impartial about all things. But there are subjects like climate change and Donald Trump, where it's irresponsible journalism to be "fair to both sides".

[daenz]

I assume by climate change you mean that since there is vast scientific consensus that it is happening, we shouldn't give much time to the theories that it isn't happening.

But what about Trump? Whether we like it or not, very nearly 50% of the voting population voted for him (and how many millions more were fine not voting against him by not voting at all). Are we to deny the POVs of the representative that 10s of millions of Americans elected? It's not quite the same argument as the overwhelming consensus on climate change.

EDIT>> In fact, I just realized that being deliberately unfair to Trump, as you seem to be suggesting, just feeds into his constant portrayal of MSM being "fake news", and only strengthens his position.

[sbov]

We should be fair to Donald Trump, because why not? Being fair doesn't mean nodding your head along to everything he says, it means not jumping the gun on all sorts of things and embarrassing yourself when it comes out wrong, which the press has regularly done when it comes to Trumpisms.