Washington Post national political correspondent James Hohman authors “The Daily 202,” a weekday electronic newsletter summarizing news, opinion, and social media content across prominent outlets. Each 202 opens with a “Big Idea,” an original commentary on what Hohman considers an especially important topic.

I like and respect Hohman’s work, but reading the 202s reveals some misfires and contradictions in his and his Post colleagues’ worldview. Consider the “Big Idea” for April 4, with this lede: “Leaders of the conservative Koch political network are mad about President Trump’s tariffs, the failure to protect ‘dreamers’ and runaway government spending. They’re frustrated congressional leaders do not feel a greater sense of urgency to pass more ambitious legislation during what could be the final six months of unified Republican control for a long time. And they’re worried that squabbling might derail their efforts to roll back financial regulations, expand access to experimental medicines and overhaul the criminal justice system.”[1]

That seems accurate enough for the libertarian-leaning Koch network. But consider the Feb. 23^rd “Big Idea” about “the degree to which the Republican Party has been radicalized.”[2] Hohman opens with talk about GOP opposition to gun control, but then shifts to the party’s new hardline positions on immigration. Immediately after that, he observes, “The Koch network has supplanted the official Republican Party apparatus in its influence and ability to shape the agenda, which includes several of the ideas [network co-founder David Koch] ran on 38 years ago.”

So which is it? Are the Kochs the men behind the curtain of the Trump-recast Republican Party’s anti-immigration agenda and other policies, or not? Or are there more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the 202’s political philosophy?

One contradiction is just an anecdote, of course, but there are other 202 head-scratchers. Take, for instance, Hohman’s January 23^rd “Big Idea” claim that unlike the political right, “lefties … temperamentally yearn for inclusion, civility and dialogue.”[3] He may not be aware, but there are plenty of examples of in civility and a lack of intellectual charity across the political spectrum.

There are also plenty of examples of similar head-scratching lack of awareness by other major media reporters. One example off the top of my head: The New York Times misreporting for years following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that the ruling removed limits on how much many individual donors can donate to political campaigns.[4] In fact, the ruling explicitly states that it does not affect current legal restrictions on individual political donors or donation limits.[5]

In my brief career in newspapers, I learned the secret to good reporting: earnestly report all sides of a political controversy. Doing that produces plenty of high-quality column inches, earns the reporter appreciation from the opposing sides and informs the public.

So why do prominent reporters at major media outlets sometimes fail to do this? Perhaps they—like all human beings—have trouble developing a rich appreciation for viewpoints at odds with their own.

This is especially worrisome in this era of charges of “fake news.” Journalists are understandably frustrated when people reject accurate reporting that conflicts with those people’s political beliefs, in favor of false narratives that buttress the beliefs. But on the other hand, people are justifiably angry when their reasonable and valued personal views are given short shrift by journalists.

That anger can be manipulated by shrewd political operators. (I won’t name any names.) Journalists understandably want to chip away at those operators’ manipulations and falsehoods. But only good journalists can do that without treating opposing viewpoints and legitimate disagreements dismissively and unsympathetically. The Principle of Charity—the ethic of treating different ideas with intellectual seriousness and respect—is not just a rule for philosophers and rhetoricians.

If journalists want to overcome the charges of fake news, they need to commit themselves to more complete and self-aware reporting. And they need to extend the Principle of Charity to viewpoints that conflict with their own. Doing so will improve their reporting and their reputation. And, more importantly, it will ultimately make life more difficult for political scoundrels who today exploit weak reporting and hide behind claims of “fake news.”

Thomas A. Firey is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute and a Washington County native.