“If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the [expletive] window and find out which is true” -Jonathan Foster
And even if they did that it wouldn't really serve what the author here is trying to cover. This is an article about Youtube censoring two doctors. The reason why is relevant (and they quote Youtube's reasoning) but it's not the main story.
Not that the article is amazing, but it's just frustrating people are piling on because it's not the story they wanted the author to write.
Lazy “he said, she said” journalism, sometimes called “bothesidesism”, is dangerous to a free society because it enables propaganda and disinformation. Lay public do not have time or resources to debunk lies and find out which side in a public debate is telling the truth (if any). That is the sacred duty of a free press.
And this press has proven time and again to be in the aggregate incompetent in this duty. Perhaps it's the fault of the changing landscape, with media chasing clickbait and online ads all the time. I'm a lot more skeptical of journalists today than I would've been a few decades ago, and there's plenty of evidence that the game is up and the political class if fully aware of how these people are unable to do this job in a way that doesn't enable propaganda and disinformation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-officia...
>“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”