Excellent example with Judy Miller’s story. I remember all of the controversy surrounding her stories because of them being such a high profile investigation. I agree with you that evidence should be provided to tell the other side of the story, but I think it is still the journalists responsibility to not be entirely blatent with some information that could be harmful to release.

The Al Jazerra for example report with no bias or objectivity. Because of this many people have made claims of sensationalism against the independent media outlet.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Al Jazeera broadcast videos of Osama Bin Laden. In the videos Osama justified why the attacks happened and gave his opinion in favor of the attack. In response to this action, the US began making claims that the Al Jaszeera were involved in the terrorist attacks by advocating on behalf of the terrorists.

Al Jazeera responded to these claims saying that they were just reporting the facts, free of bias. The videos however, still struck a chord in the American public and fueled the fire toward war.

-Jenni Brown

You pose an excellent question. I think it would be better for a journalist to at least investigate and provide evidence for or against “the other side”, even if he or she doesn’t show both sides of the story. I can think of Judith Miller’s story about WMD, which later turned out to be a totally one-sided story.
She could’ve been more objective without actually speaking for the terrorists.

-Victor V