[wintermutestwin]

It absolutely is possible to write completely neutrally. All it takes is for the writer to be aware/honest of their biases and to have a goal of achieving a neutral perspective. Of course the goal of most writing is explicitly to not be neutral.

[advisedwang]

Take the example of circumcision. You could probably write a mere definition of circumcision neutrally, sure.

But do you include cultural practices of circumcision? Do you include criticism? If so, how many column inches do you dedicate to either? Which comes first? That surely is going to determine whether the article appears to support or oppose, which is basically the issue in the comment above.

But beyond that, do you group female circumcision in the same article as male circumcision? If not, you are tacitly approving of male circumcision by separating it from disapproved of practice. If so, surely you need to explain the difference in social and legal acceptability. If you do that without noting controversy, then you are implying the social acceptance of male circumcision is universal. If you note controversy, then you are necessarily elevating that to noteworthyness.

There's no way out of it.

[12ian34]

well said, reminds me of the Kuleshov Effect[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect

[phailhaus]

Literally the first thing you will learn in journalism school is that there is no such thing as "objective neutrality". Even deciding what story to cover includes bias.

[nephihaha]

There are some subjects which various groups cannot agree upon by definition and nature.

[padjo]

Have you ever taken a media class? It really isn’t.