I tended to agree with this position. I believed that those who had to be silent should speak as much as they need to, and those who oppressed them need to shut the hell up. These contradictory voices should not be equal, should not be presented neutrally. I have recently reconsidered my point of view...
I argue that creating a media message we must equally present different positions on the same subject even if we are one hundred percent sure that only one of these positions is correct. Most importantly, as media consumers we should judge them equally, in the same rigorous manner.
I know that my position might seem outrageous to some. I myself am struggling with it. I am biased, after all, like all of us are. But if we are all biased, how are we to judge what voices should be given priority? It makes us angry to think that for a long time certain social groups had to be silent because somebody have decided that they don't deserve to be heard. Why do we think that we are better judges of who should be heard and who should not? Equality does not happen when those who have been previously silenced can now silence their oppressors. It is just a new form of inequality, it is a revenge.
I believe that equality happens on the level of expression and scrutiny. All people, whether we disagree with them or not, should be allowed to speak their truths. And then these truths should be analyzed rigorously and fairly. If we are truly committed to this principle, we will be able to detect lies and manipulation when they happen, and we will make the right decision.
I would encourage media consumers to share responsibility with media producers. We should not blame somebody else: "How were we to know? They (experts, scientists, politicians) told us, and we thought they know better!" It is up to us to evaluate information fairly and rigorously, to educate ourselves, and to be constantly aware of our own biases.