Two sides to every CSR story?

When I put together my news briefs, I like to think that I present a balanced view. Often, this means including articles that take opposing positions on a topic - but lately, I've started to wonder if this approach doesn't introduce a different sort of bias.

I was thinking about this as I cut-and-pasted a DiversityInc article about Wal-Mart being the recent target of the Largest Discrimination Case in History, and then added another article suggesting that the big-box retailer may be creating A Blueprint for Reviving Black-Owned Banks. One count against Wal-Mart's diversity policies, and one count in favor.

But is it truly balanced?

I remembered how Wal-Mart has a "war room" of PR professionals managing its reputation, and wondered if they had been calling every news outlet in the country, trying desperately to place a pro-diversity story in order to counter news of the lawsuit. It wouldn't have surprised me; anyone in their position might do the same thing.

Next I noticed another article in The Guardian blaming a recent UK ban on junk-food advertising for draining needed funding from children's television programing. I had covered news of the ban before, and wondered if this was somehow the junk food manufacturers' response to it. Or maybe it was just reflected a reporter who, like me, wanted to present a "balanced" view.

But are two sides to a story equally valid? And in this age of proliferating information, isn't it the job of the news media (and of columnists and bloggers) to help us filter the relevant from the irrelevant, and the better arguments from the less-tenable ones?

It's a tough tightrope to walk, and reminds me of a previous post self-critical post on how our perception of the CSR news landscape can easily become skewed.