I recall from many years ago a friend's characterization of a certain notion of media balance - in which two people appear on a programme, one of whom has been tortured in some foul prison somewhere (the actual example was Chile, if I'm not mistaken) and testifies to having been tortured, while the other of them argues, well, that's his opinion. I was reminded of it by this story. Of course, what the truth is is sometimes difficult to ascertain. But sometimes it isn't. (Hat tip: Jeff A.)