Question

A lot has been said in recent years about the media imbalance (which has changed somewhat relatively speaking), and I usually pretty much agree with the outcry against discrimination from the left.

Still, I wonder: if, say, half the nation—or even most of it—were to support the idea that genocide is a positive thing and should be encouraged, would it still be proper to represent that view in the media? Is the role of journalism and freedom of speech to represent the public’s opinion at any cost? 

That is, where exactly is the fine line at which, ethically and professionally, you are obligated to give representation to the other side’s view even though, in your opinion, it is leading us toward disaster? (As the left thinks about the right in this case.)