It came up on a recent thread that a serious discussion must address both sides of a topic. Perhaps, but inherent in that is to what extent both views should be presented.

So I thought I would try to start a thread in the the style of Michael Sandel's "Global Philosopher" series. If this works out - which I very much doubt! - we could try other topics, but for the moment we will stick to this question:

What does it mean to be fair?

Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, have a concept of fairness in their charter. This is often represented as presenting all views equally. But we know there are some subjects where one view is dominant and the other is - at least in the UK - much less common. Examples might be creationism, climate change and Trump's presidential qualities. The BBC's attempt to be 'fair' can often lead to minority opinions being given (close to) equal air time, which distorts the picture. An example of that, though not one which usually gets tempers too high, is the BBC's "Thought for the Day" which non-believers periodically object to even existing.

On the other hand, is it 'fair' that minority views are not heard? Great social reforms, for example, often started from a small group insisting a situation was 'unfair'. Refusing to hear or print their views can perpetuate unfairness.

I mentioned a few examples above. I fear this thread will immediately turn into a discussion of one or more of those, in which case I hope mods will close it. Have those topics in mind as you post, certainly, but let's try to stick the overarching question of what fairness means.

Finally, there are a few people with enough background to cite philosophers through the ages. That's ok, but please make sure any articles referenced do not rely on specialised concepts. The idea of Being-in-itself, for example, is a bit too far for a general chat like this.