Balance

To go one step further, would it be necessary to have a balanced expression of opinion from all parties (as I suggested a few days ago) ?

Let me show you another article by Jerome Kassirer.

********************************

Over the years we have received numerous queries from readers and reporters about controversial editorials... The confusion centers on two questions: Whose opinions do editorials represent? And why don't we regularly seek "balance" on controversial issues?

... When we select opinion pieces for publication, therefore, we consider the importance of the topic, the novelty of the argument, and the logic and persuasiveness with which the argument is made, but we do not ask whether it conforms to today's dominant view, nor do we necessarily agree with it...

... We also believe that trying to balance one point of view with its opposite each time we feature a controversial subject would be insulting to our readers. It would imply that they cannot evaluate an argument on its own merits or retain and modify it in the light of later arguments...

... We cannot afford to be too concerned about whether some people or groups will be offended. As Benjamin Franklin said, "If all Printers were determin'd not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."

********************************

Go read Kassirer J and Angell M. Controversial Journal editorials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1260-1261.

PS. Jerome Kassirer was later fired by the Massachusetts Medical Society, I know.