If the alternative view is based on nonsense or propaganda (like: "world is not warming because of humans"), is it still journalism to mention the alternative view? That's what got me to stop reading the news -- the near-compulsive need to be "fair and balanced" when one side is patently false.
I mostly enjoy reading economic news, and modern monetary theory is decidedly Keynsian -- stimulus boost economies (ultimately through inflation) and budget cuts cause protracted retractions... at least in countries that print their own money. There's not really "another side" to that argument, according to economic research.
It's almost like journalism about stocks advocating "index funds vs. investing in 1 stock" -- investing in 1 stock has such higher risks of catastrophic failure that it's not really a contrasting point of view.