"Taking no position" often leads to annoying "he said/she said" lazy journalism. You know, where no matter how obvious the truth is, they find some photogenic dimwit to oppose the issue. Lazy journalists can then claim they took no position, and presented both sides of the issue in question.
This is essentially the same as the Creationist's stated desire to "teach the controversy". Rubbish. Show the evidence and say what it adds up to.
"Controversial" really is the favorite weasel word of that brand of journalism. Sometimes there's an actual debate, but more often than not, one side or the other is just factually wrong.
Exactly. Too many news organizations eschew investigative reporting and instead lazily settle for "presenting both sides." And what if there are more than two sides? Well two is enough. It'll do.
To even decide to report on an issue in the first place is to take a stand on its value. News organizations are doing the public a disservice in stopping there.
This is essentially the same as the Creationist's stated desire to "teach the controversy". Rubbish. Show the evidence and say what it adds up to.