The assumption is that the ideal is an impartial analysis of the two sides in a sociopolitical dispute and that this should proceed by outlining the dispute in a symmetrical fashion.
This is, as I say, an assumption. there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any of this is true.
Think of the way in which the tow sides are typically outlines in such classics as monarchical versus republican government, or capitalist versus socialist economics, conservatism and progressivism, Right and Left, one Presidential candidate against another...
Or the two sides in some kind of public dispute.
The deep problem is that the idea that there is an impartial, equally fair to both sides, way of articulating an significant disagreement, is itself an ideology - and a very modern ideology at that.
Impartiality, indeed, can only really have any operational meaning when applied to very highly controlled situations of procedural justice - asking, are the procedures being adhered to strictly, explicitly, with sufficient precision? But as legal experience shows, even here there is no objectivity, since there are different degrees of minuteness to the procedural examination.
So a procedure which is valid at one level of analysis may break down as the microscopic analysis of sub-procedures, and sub-sub-procedures reveals irregularities.
The ideal of impartial analysis of symmetrical disputes is indeed an utterly prejudiced and blinkered ways of conceptualizing a dispute - as our ancestors would instantly have recognized.
By contrast, the reality is that justice is the judgement of a wise, informed individual who wants to find the correct decision from the perspective of what is Good. Justice, rightness... these are aspects of Goodness; and it is the nature of Goodness that is at issue in all significant disputes.
Note: These reflections were stimulated by this interview - in which Ruth A Johnston engages in what is represented as an impartial analysis - one aspect of which is to regard the tow sides in a dispute in a symmetrical fashion. Yet, so far as I am aware, a symmetrical dispute has never, ever, happened in the history of the world - so such an analysis cannot possibly be valid: