You're right, there is three. My side, your side, and the truth.
no not at all. This is the type of delusion that fuels the morans that buy into the "fair and balanced" FUD from Fox news and their ilk.
(fair and balanced in their case literally means: a direct conservative interpretation of events, to "balance" out what they perceive "all other left wing media bias". Which is fine, and they know this; but they also know that their audience is dumb enough to believe that this means "telling all sides to every story." because...people are dumb)
Yes, there are often opposing perspectives to many issues, and many stories. Many, many events are more grey on examination. But, no respected journalist would assume that every story always gains traction if only they would interview someone with an opposing view--simply because there is this perceived notion that this
always adds value. It does not; and that is poor journalism. Oftentimes, you get stuck interviewing idiots....it's harsh, but true. The perspective of an idiot rarely adds value
An extreme example: Putting together a historical series on the Holocaust. There is literally nothing to be gained from including the perspective of delusional holocaust deniers. Literally,
nothing. There is absolutely one side to this story: some fucking evil people did some really horrible stuff and murdered a whole shit load of people. There is no valid "this did not happen" argument for this story.
Now, does one gain value in interviewing Germans who were regular citizens, who perhaps worked at these camps, to perhaps gain insight into the psychology that allows these things to happen on a large scale? Yes!