Neutrality and Accuracy

   There is no conflict between journalism's twin goals of being both neutral and accurate in reporting, especially of what political candidates say and what they actually do.
   Campaign teams complain mightily that any news report detailing anything negative about their candidate is unfair, biased, incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, they add that news coverage of the opposing candidate overplays the good and ignores the negative aspects of the other candidate's character.
   'Twas ever thus, and this year is no exception, with the added note that the complaints are louder and more extreme.
   First, journalism's duty is to report fully and accurately on Candidate A.
   Second, it must report fully and accurately on Candidate B.
   Third, report the truth. Perhaps there is some truth in what each says. Then again, perhaps not.
   Finally, report the possibility, plausibility and likelihood that both are wrong.

   Indeed, it's possible that one candidate is more wrong than the other. But to adhere to a practice of treating each candidate with equal time and space, as if both are equally wrong (or equally right) is a false balance.
   Sometimes, one candidate is far more wrong about more things more often another. By definition, this puts the reporting out of balance. To pursue lesser errors of Candidate B and give them equal emphasis in news coverage is a false equivalence.
   
   Do politicians lie? Of course they do, and some lies are more egregious than others. Furthermore, when a candidate persists in propounding an egregious lie in the face of mountains of evidence, journalism has a duty to present the evidence in a fair and impartial fashion, as well as to label the candidate's claims for what they are: Lies.
   This is not to say, however, that Candidate B gets a pass because that candidate tells fewer lies less often and doesn't resort to the sound and fury of double-down denial.

   All lies are wrong. Some lies are more wrong than others, and so deserve more exposure. It is journalism's duty to expose the lies, and the bigger the lie, the more exposure it should get.
   But a lying candidate does not deserve more coverage simply because said candidate lies more. Nor does the lesser lie deserve as much time and news space simply in the name of "balanced" coverage.
   There is always the journalistic duty to offer perspective, and it is the editor's responsibility to decide the relative importance of each set of lies.
   That's what is meant by fair and balanced.