Masterymistery Explored

In response to the preceding post's concern over pro-Nazi exhibits at National History Day, Masterymistery writes,

Weirsdo, I think part of it is similar to the "balanced coverage" issue, in which all participants have equal standing irrespective of whether it's merited.
Using the example from your post, it's the same syndrome that would see Hitler and a holocaust survivor being given "equal opportunity" to express their respective views.
Or another example: an interview on the subject of childhood vaccination involving a professional medical practitioner and a misinformed parent who has read something on the Net to the effect that 1 in a trillion children develop adverse effects.
"Balanced coverage" is a worthy goal, in the appropriate context. But when it's at the behest (as it so often is these days) of an ignorant, uninformed, ethically challenged journalist in search of ratings, it can be highly un-productive.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I actually believe that it is right to give Nazis the opportunity to express their views (otherwise how will we know how horrible they are?), and I don't even think it is wrong to investigate whether or not Nazis were unfairly treated. I certainly think it understandable that naive and uninformed students might believe this was a subject worth pursuing. My problem is with the parents, teachers, and most of all judges responsible for supporting projects that concluded the Nazis were inhumanely treated, projects that won first, second, or possibly third prizes in their states and were consequently exhibited in a nationwide competition. My overall argument in the post was that judges too often seemed uninformed and overly swayed by factors other than historical accuracy and how well informed and balanced the students' presentations were.