[foerbert]

What balance are you talking about? I've never been able to figure it out.

Are we talking just providing an equal number of sentences from the perspective of each major party? How do we decide which parties get included, here? Do we instead break it up by major ideologies? Again, which ones?

Even if we attempt to go no ideology and just raw facts, the facts you choose to report are a result of interpretation. You could easily construct an entirely factual article that contains no subjective opinions and still be majorly and intentionally deceptive. So not mentioning any perspectives is also not balanced.

What balance is everybody talking about? How is it defined? How we determine what is and is not balanced?

[chrisseaton]

> What balance are you talking about?

It’s not as complicated as you’re making out.

If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good.

Not rocket science is it?

[foerbert]

You say it like it's so easy. It's not. The reality is many (maybe even most?) articles - even ones from incredibly openly biased sources - do this. It's often difficult to make many meaningful attacks on a proposed law without mentioning what the intent is.

Unless it's one of a few already highly-covered issues with fundamentally irreconcilable subjective issues where you can pretty much recall all that context with a few words... you have to say what the heck the proponents of the law say it'll do to actually attack it.

However you don't seem to find that balanced. I don't blame you. I don't either.

The problem is the arguments made cannot be equal. They are not the same thing. Even a good faith attempt to make a completely neutral article will very often fall short. Even if the author thinks they did not, others will.

The only 'balance' you can really have is a false equivalence where nothing matters because it's all the same anyway - so why even write an article? It doesn't matter what happens.

[Redoubts]

> If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good.

Can you not read two articles, and do this yourself?

[chrisseaton]

That’s not very efficient is it and since they’re written separately they don’t directly address each other’s points.