The essence of censorship, and of social thought control, is the suppression
of alternative points of view to the point where the average member of
society literally does not know that the point of view exists. Orwell,
insanity is a minority of one. The goal is to get people with doubts or
tendencies to inquiry to believe "I am _the only person in the world_ who
believes this."
This sort of censorship can exist even when more than one point of view is
represented. For example, in the United States, there is a tendency by the
mainstream media to give the impression that everyone is _either_ a
Republican or a Democrat. (I often think it comical, fa lal lal, fa lal lal,
that every boy and every gal who's born into this world alive is either a
little Liberal or else a little Conservative...) Or, that everyone is either
a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Jew.
The strength of this sort of thought suppression is almost entirely sapped
when even the slightest hint of the existence of the suppressed point of view
slips through. Many of us have felt the intense liberating effect of the
discovery that we are _not_ the only [agnostics, Democrats, people who can't
abide twelve-tone music, whatever] in the world
The important thing is that the points of view be presented. And, that they
be labelled and attributed so that the reader has an opportunity to judge
their credibility.
Whether the presentation is balanced is _far_ less important. The reader can
see and judge the balance for himself. If the article gives great weight to
one set of views and little weight to another, that will be obvious to the
reader, who will be able to sense the author's point of view. That's OK. It's
not important that the author's point of view not leak through (and it's
impossible to prevent). What's important is that the other points of view be
present. _Even if_ they are given short shrift, or accurately or inaccurately
presented as less authoritative. "You'll believe this, and no authority
supports it, but there IS this kook named Copernicus who thinks the Earth
isn't the center of the universe" is more than enough to open the mind and
trigger the "Wow! is that _possible_?" response.
An article that truly presents a single point of view ex cathedra is bad.
But I think even a sentence or two labelling it "this is the XYZ point of
view put forth by ABC. QQXXZZ, however, counters (one sentence summary)"
"neutralizes" it almost completely. Later, if someone wants to write a longer
section dealing with the QQXXZZ viewpoint, they can.
That's my point of view, anyway.