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.