Stellar One Annals, January 25, 2023
There is no neutral voice. The claim of neutrality is itself a position, and too often it is the position of power. When someone insists on being “above the fray,” what they mean is that they will protect the status quo. Neutrality is the camouflage of those who do not want to risk clarity, but also do not want to risk change.
The press is most guilty. Journalists are trained to believe their job is to balance competing claims. If one politician says the sky is blue and another says the sky is green, the headline will read: Debate Emerges Over Sky Color. The lie is given equal weight with the truth, and the audience is left to assume the truth is simply a matter of perspective. That is not reporting; it is surrender. Neutrality does not serve democracy—it sabotages it.
Academia plays the same game. Professors present “multiple perspectives” on subjects that should not be matters of debate. A course on climate science bends over backwards to include “skeptic voices.” A course on history insists on “balance” between those who documented oppression and those who justified it. Students are told they are being given the tools to “decide for themselves,” but in reality they are being trained to believe every position is equally valid, even when one is built on lies.
Politics thrives on this game of neutrality. Leaders dodge accountability by saying they are “listening to all sides.” They refuse to take a stance until “all the data is in.” They pretend that being cautious is being objective, when in fact it is just being cowardly. A leader who cannot say, “this is wrong,” is not neutral—they are complicit.
The danger is that neutrality sounds reasonable. Who could oppose balance? Who could reject fairness? But fairness is not the same as equivalence. To say two arguments are equally valid when one is based on evidence and the other on fantasy is not fairness—it is distortion. The so-called neutral voice magnifies lies by giving them the same stage as truth.
Consider how this plays out in public life. When journalists describe neo-Nazis as “right-wing activists,” they are not being neutral—they are sanitizing hate. When professors describe slavery as “one perspective in a contested history,” they are not being balanced—they are erasing atrocity. When politicians describe insurrection as “legitimate protest,” they are not being cautious—they are legitimizing violence. Neutrality does not protect truth; it protects power by disguising its abuses as another side of the debate.
The strongman understands this perfectly. He thrives in a culture addicted to neutrality, because he knows his lies will be reported as “controversial statements” rather than falsehoods. He knows his brutality will be covered as “a matter of debate.” Neutrality turns his excesses into one more option on the menu, and he exploits it relentlessly. He does not have to persuade anyone his words are true—he only has to ensure they are printed next to the truth without distinction.
A functioning democracy requires judgment. It requires journalists willing to write the sentence: This statement is false. It requires professors willing to teach: This theory is wrong. It requires leaders willing to say: This action is unacceptable. Neutrality in these cases is not a virtue; it is a vice. Without judgment, the public loses the ability to distinguish truth from lie, justice from cruelty, democracy from its imitators.
The neutral voice is never neutral. It always leans toward the comfort of the powerful, the avoidance of conflict, the preservation of appearances. The only real neutrality is silence, and silence is already a choice. A society that mistakes neutrality for fairness is a society that will allow its foundations to rot while congratulating itself on balance.
We do not need neutrality. We need courage. We need sentences that risk being wrong because they also risk being right. We need teachers, journalists, and citizens willing to abandon the pretense of neutrality in favor of the obligation to truth. Neutrality is camouflage, and democracy cannot survive if its defenders hide in the trees.
