David Broder, "Behind the Front Page" talks about how in an effort to be balanced reporters do exactly what you suggest - give both sides of a controversy equal, or greater, time.

For instance, when Ol' Joe McCarthy was running wild most reporters and editors thought he and the inquisition was wrong. However, they would run 2 to 3 times as many stories in favor of McCarthy than against out of fear.

Conservatives believe it was biased if, for instance, more than a mention of Abu Ghraib was made. Some things are bad, and they should be reported that way. Contrary to Conservative belief, a "balanced" reporting on those topics would be 5 stories about how horrifically terrible such behavior is and 5 stories on how merely terrible.

The touching stories of compassion to wounded, burned and otherwise maimed kids coming out of Iraq ignore the reality that they shouldn't have been battered to begin with, of the hundreds of thousands more who haven't been taken care of, and the millions who have lost parents, grandparents, had to move, and so on.

But those little tidbits do warm the cockles of the Conservative heart.

Arf