I bet you would care about neutrality real quick if a "journalist" was a de facto opposition party proponent and a complicit player and destroyer of your world view - even if was being, as you say, only truthful.
You are partly correct, truth is important.
But if one were to continually - albeit truthfully - state only that "A" is wrong and bad over and over again but never state that "B" is bad because of x, y, & z, is NOT helpful. All the truth in the world at that point doesn't matter because the journalist sold neutrality for one-sided "truth".