Part of the reason why it's rare is, I think, because of our schools. A lot of education pushes people to see things as having only one correct answer. That it's more important to win the debate than to explore ideas. There is not much emphasis on how one develops solid and correct ideas. There is a tendency towards justifying ideas, coming up with good-sounding reasons, whether or not they are actually true.
Also, writing that explores other perspectives in a fact-based manner can easily come across as an if-by-whiskey fallacy [1].
As far as a real answer goes - I think that it's a genuinly difficult problem. Religious figures have been talking about perspectives and empathy and compassion for thousands of years. It's clearly a big thing.
As far as the specifics of the SSC controversy, my attempt to understand both sides is this: Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. Whose commitments should win? Whose commitments are the most important?
Scott found a way to make his ethical commitments work for him. Maybe it was a compromise, but I think it worked well enough so that his patients couldn't easily find out who he was. I think that the NYT could have easily made it work with their commitments, and everyone would have been better off.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20w...