> No, I'm just not interested in any "neutral" discussion of human rights. I don't want to read or listen to nationalists, incels, or whoever offering up opinions on the "great replacement theory" or whatever.
You pick an extreme example to make the same point anyone says about "free speech". I do find it funny that you left out the other side of the extreme. I am equally uninterested in listening to climate extremists who spray oil on businesses, rioters, antifa, anti-gunners, etc. Turns out, the extremes don't groove well with journalistic integrity because they don't believe in truth anyway. In fact, many of these extremes are created by the exact "journalism" we are complaining about here.
I do want neutrality in the truest sense. If news could be a list of facts derived by good journalism with sources, interviews, etc then I would be content. I don't want spin, I don't want an editorial disguised as a front page article. I want a person with a mundane droning monotone voice to tell me what happened, read off the interviews, and then close out the show. I want a set of facts that I can then derive my own conclusion from. This leaping off point would let me take this to my friends or family and have a meaningful discussion on what they think, or how it effects people, etc. Instead everything is an emergency. Everything is extreme. Every news outlet on whatever side you believe is telling you what to think, not what happened. You can't even listen to the big 3 news outlets in America, average their opinions, and end up anywhere closer to the truth. Coincidentally, this is the same problem with so-called "fact checkers", which is just a clever rebranding of yellow journalism, where the "fact check" is just a re-link to another disguised editorial or speculation on the meaning of something with enough filler to feel "truthy".