Neutrality used to be the promise. The idea that institutions, media, and leaders could step back from ideology and simply tell the truth, enforce the rules, and let the public decide. That promise is gone. Not broken by accident — abandoned on purpose. What replaced it isn’t honesty about perspective. It’s something more aggressive: alignment masquerading as virtue. Today, taking sides is no longer seen as a failure of judgment. It’s marketed as moral clarity. You’re expected not just to understand the news, but to feel correctly about it. To react on cue. To accept that certain conclusions are not just preferable, but mandatory. Neutrality didn’t disappear because it was impossible. It disappeared because it was inconvenient. A neutral stance leaves room for disagreement. It allows uncomfortable questions. It creates uncertainty — and uncertainty is dangerous to systems that rely on consensus and compliance. When neutrality exists, power has to argue. Without it, power only has to as...