We bump into a whole mess of assumptions here, don’t we? I’ll just go after a few of them.

• The most obvious wrong assumption here (and the most dangerous) is that professional journalists have the authority to dictate the public conversation. They don’t. Journalists are not independent authorities, bestowed with the burden of managing truth. Journalists are participants in a marketplace, be it a market of ideas or advertising revenues, and usually both. Journalists enjoy the fiction that they deem what the public is worthy to hear, but that’s a purely self-serving myth. It tells the public that they must obey the Lords of Journalism. We don’t have to do nothing, pal.
• Another assumption is that the reporter or editor is any more qualified to sort out truth and falsity than the public is. If the public needs to be spoon-fed what to believe because they’re not scientific experts, well neither are the reporters. Besides, the public is filled with some very intelligent people, who may not be scientific experts but are experts in other fields, and to labor under the fantasy that you have to spoon-feed them because you’re a reporter is just arrogance. So if the reporter feels he can sort out the truth from the available options, well then so too can the public. But the difference is that truth belongs to everyone, not just to reporters. It’s the public’s right to make that decision, not the reporter.
• One more assumption – and it’s revealed in the original article’s offhand dismissal of religion in the last paragraph. “…environmentalism can become a religion, and religions always seek to silence or marginalize heretics.” If nothing else, that reveals a deep misunderstanding of religion. In the marketplace of ideas, consumers encounter different points of view, and the consumer’s job is to evaluate the different “brands” and select one.
• But in the marketplace, religious believers aren’t shoppers. They’re sellers. They’ve already come to their conclusions themselves, and they go to the marketplace to advocate for their conclusions.
• That’s why it’s not their job to offer different points of view. The market does that. The seller’s job is simply to present the strongest case for their beliefs as possible.
• What’s a heretic? A heretic is someone within the believing community who contradicts the beliefs. It’s like an employee of Microsoft who tells shoppers that Windows sucks and they should buy Apple. You can’t defend that disloyal employee by saying that he was just seeking the independent truth.

If any reporters wonder whether they should smother alternative points of view, it just shows that they don’t respect the authority of the market. It would be like Microsoft demanding that Apple close shop and leave. That’s not a decision for each of the competing sellers to make. That’s for the market to make. If Apple goes out of business on its own, the market has decided. In the same way, the marketplace of ideas will decide which ideas deserve to stay and which can go.

So in your conceit, what then is the role of the journalist?

You mentioned brands - specifically microsoft and apple. Is the journalist in your analogy the BestBuy?

:)

It's a relevent question. The reason is that there should be some attempt on the part of the journalist to present ACCURATE information. If I bought some software that was defective, I'd take it back to BestBuy and get my money back... the store is accountable to the idea that the products the sell actually work. In the same vein, the journalist is accountable to the idea that the story he/she tells presents an accurate impression.

Presenting everything does not accomplish this.

If a journalist was writing about the Chinese plan to land on the moon - must he/she waste some of the limited space on the crackpot conspiracy garbage: "the U.S. might have faked the lunar landing just to make itself look good."?

No. Because the statement is not being responsible to give an accurate impression. There are a few dumbass screeds out there questioning the validity... then there is the story that everyone understands. The journalist is not responsible to try to inaccurately portray the lunar landing as "uncertain" or "disputed"... It isn't. A few crackpots still argue the world is flat, and some actually don't believe in Newtonian gravity... These things are not in dispute, that is not an accurate reflection of the story...

The story is: "this is true, and there are a few delusional morons that don't believe it." That is how it should be reported.

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.

I concede point.

I just got lost in following your conceit and thought you were arguing otherwise.

My fault for reading quickly and firing of a quick retort.

Sorry.

:)