Always buyer beware. Of course.

There's an ambiguity that needs to be clarified here. Any journalist can publish anything they want. If you want to publish global warming theories and omit the "deniers," that's your freedom. Publish whatever you want. But recognize that you have no right to prevent someone else from publishing something different. Responsible journalists should include what they think is true, and omit what they think is bogus. That's editorial freedom.

But let's remember what the ethical question was. The angst was whether a journalist is obligated to include all perspectives (even those he believes are false) in his report.

My reply is that this is a false dilemma. Maybe if each individual journalist was the only source of information, then you might have a dilemma. But that isn't the case. Journalists are part of a large marketplace, where other reporters are covering the same stories, each from their own perspectives. Therefore, there's no need to worry about whether to include information that you don't agree with. If you don't include it, someone else will. So why the worry?

• You'd only be worried if you believed in the myth that the public was depending on you (just you!) to decide truth for them.
• And examine your own reading habits. When did you empower reporters to decide truth for you? I don't know about you, but I never turned over my personal discretion to a reporter.
• A newspaper subscription is not a blood oath of loyalty to the editor's point of view.

A marketplace of ideas is not just a pleasant phrase. It means competition of ideas, and that no one "seller" has the right to silence other sellers. Journalists who fret about the ethics of "whether they should tell the public everything" misunderstand that market.