After a hypothetical mass shooting, we expect the news media to report on it and include an item, for balance of course, giving the murderer’s point of view????

Being honest in journalism isn't necessarily about being neutral or giving each side "equal time". In fact, if you are watching news and they actively claim to be totally unbiased, it's a pretty safe bet that they are especially biased and want you to think that their bias is the "neutral" position. Instead, it is more often better to be open and honest about where you stand on issues, and then simply have diversity in which people you have. Breaking Points with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti is a great example. Krystal is openly on the left, Saagar is openly on the right, they talk about what they agree on and what they disagree on. They are open about their anti-establishment stance. This is far better than trying to claim neutrality. Similarly, in issues of science, neutrality only makes sense when results are inconclusive. Once there are conclusions, there are facts and falsehoods. If you are debating the existence of gravity, there isn't "two sides" which must have "equal representation". People trying to declare neutrality or being fair and balanced by saying things like "We'll never know" or "They presented alternative facts" is exactly how we get a news media that exists outside reality, and a congress that doesn't represent anyone or help anyone. You have to acknowledge reality before you know how to fix it.