These are examples of truly neutral journalism. You take two extremes on the same issue side by side and let others decide. It's powerful. But undoubtedly one just needs to ask "are these not two extremes"

But you don't get neutrality by posting "two extremes" side by side.

Funny because you look for "neutral journalism" you'll surely find CNN, NBC, and a whole host of organizations claiming to be "neutral journalists"

But if you use apps that basically let you prompt your biases. Left? Right? This nation? That nation? etc . . . this is the kind of app that lets you find neutrality by comparing leans. Or wait. You can find the perfect journalist who's overtly "neutral"

Neutral is the alignment of cowards.

Innocent people are victimized? Neutral characters don't bother, because they don't think it's their responsibility to help. That's why neutral characters are not good friends. They don't care.

Regarding neutral journalism: There never has been such a thing, and if you ask me, there never will be. Journalism is always political. If a person runs amok, journalists will condemn it, and tell people that the police has everything under control, even if that's not the case. If a person wants to change the status quo, journalists will go against that person, even if the change would be good for society.

I found a simple solution to the problem of "two extremes": Who is causing harm outside of defense?

If one side is causing harm and the other is not, the former is wrong and the latter is right.

If both sides are causing harm, both are wrong.

Example: The Guantanamo surviver is right, because he was not charged with a crime. The state violated the non-aggression principle. It wasn't a situation of defense. They claim it was, but in reality, it was not.