Interesting analogy on why taking no sides in journalism actually means taking a wrong side:

"When a basketball referee fails to call a foul late in a close game, broadcasters will often say the referee "didn't want to decide the game" or "wanted to let the players decide the game on the court."  The implication is that if the referee calls a last-second foul, he is deciding the outcome of the game -- but that if he doesn't call it, he is letting the players determine the outcome.  This may be aesthetically and dramatically pleasing to some, but as a basic matter of fact and logic, it is incorrect.  By not blowing the whistle on a clear foul, the referee is doing the opposite of what the announcers say he is doing.  He isn't really letting the players decide the game on the court; he's giving one team a distinct advantage.  When the people in charge of enforcing the rules stop doing so, their actions are the opposite of neutrality. Not calling a foul is a decision, too -- and it, too, has consequences."

Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002220005