Pass it on
Somewhere along the line, the profession confused having no position with having a principled position. The result is a kind of journalism that treats every claim as equally weighty regardless of its relationship to evidence.
Neutrality, properly understood, would require weighing the claims and reporting which one the evidence supports. That is not what the modern newsroom means by the word. What it means is: give both sides equal time, equal prominence, and equal framing, regardless of the distribution of evidence, because taking a position might alienate a demographic that the advertising department has identified as valuable. This is not neutrality. It is a business decision wearing a journalistic costume.
Consider how this plays out in practice. A panel discussion on climate change includes one climate scientist and one person who read a blog post. The format treats them as equals; two perspectives on a contested issue. But the contest is not between two equally valid positions. It is between a position supported by decades of peer-reviewed research and a position supported by the blogger’s feelings. The format is not neutral. The format is deceptive. It manufactures controversy where none exists and then congratulates itself for being "balanced."
Real neutrality is harder. It means following the evidence wherever it leads and reporting that conclusion even when it offends half your audience. It means admitting when one side is wrong; not because you dislike that side, but because the evidence says so. The spine is not missing from modern journalism. It has been surgically removed and billed to the marketing budget. And the patient; the public; is paying the cost in a currency it does not realize it is spending: the ability to know what is true.