I’m not a big fan of the “he said”-“she said” model of journalism, which often superficially passes as something objective. And I think it can be intellectually dishonest. We’ve certainly seen this with global climate change reporting in which reporters felt that they had to report both sides and would often end up going to industry-funded scientists for the “other” side of the story. The result was that the stories often inaccurately conveyed that the industry’s rather political position against climate change findings carried exactly the same weight as a scientific consensus for them. And the result of that was, I’m afraid, to enable some of the denialism that goes on today.
So I’m not a big fan of the traditional model of “objectivity”. I try to think more about telling an honest story. To me that means doing enough research that you understand what the important points in your story might be. And then - absolutely - providing the reader with the evidence that underscores why you think those points matter.This, and other excellent story-telling advice, from Deborah Blum.