No. Forcing a neutral perspective between absurdity and objectively true claims is how we got here.
When one party says that scientific evidence is real and the other says it’s a Marxist conspiracy, forced neutralized lends undue credence to the latter.
Similarly, forcibly neutral newsrooms and the neoliberal Starmer government consider it extremist to acknowledge that the fascist apartheid regime of Israel is committing genocide and to call for your country to not supply them with arms, funds, and political cover.
It should try to be as FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE as possible, not chase neutrality when neutrality flies in the face of evidence and the most basic accountability and human rights.
Introducing this sort of thing without trying to be strictly impartial sounds like a slippery slope.
Yeah, they’re GOING to consider extremism as anything too far from the interests of the neoliberal and capitalist elite in either direction rather than pursue an evidence-based curriculum of critical thinking like they’re pretending.