I agree with the source of disagreement but not with your characterisation. To me, it is not fair and impartial or free of editorialising (with an "s"). You say it is fair and impartial because it just shows the subject's views without distortion (at least as far as we know). But, as I've said, I'm more concerned with what is factually right and that means a discussion of a topic should represent it fairly as well as with the necessary context to understand it. I don't see it as fair or impartial to present only that one side when it is clearly a minority position. As I see it, that chapter was very biased in favour of various forms of religion and spirituality.
Perhaps the best outside example concerns climate change debates. They are usually presented as one person who believes in climate change and one who doesn't. This is the "fair and impartial" treatment of journalists. The problem is, when you have 99% of climate scientists in agreement, that sort of 1 v. 1 is a very biased distortion of the "debate."
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I agree with the source of disagreement but not with your characterisation. To me, it is not fair and impartial or free of editorialising (with an "s"). You say it is fair and impartial because it just shows the subject's views without distortion (at least as far as we know). But, as I've said, I'm more concerned with what is factually right and that means a discussion of a topic should represent it fairly as well as with the necessary context to understand it. I don't see it as fair or impartial to present only that one side when it is clearly a minority position. As I see it, that chapter was very biased in favour of various forms of religion and spirituality.
Perhaps the best outside example concerns climate change debates. They are usually presented as one person who believes in climate change and one who doesn't. This is the "fair and impartial" treatment of journalists. The problem is, when you have 99% of climate scientists in agreement, that sort of 1 v. 1 is a very biased distortion of the "debate."
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~