Yesterday, I received a message that made me think. It was from a man who not only listened to the show, but, like most people, also discussed it with his friends. He was concerned. He felt that most people didn't think that I was neutral enough, and he wanted me to demonstrate more of a balance, since our show is meant to appeal to all sides of the political divide.

Now, this got me thinking, not just about this very important feedback, but about our general attitudes towards politics, journalism, and the discussion of national issues. Was the listener right? Are neutrality and balance what we need in our political discourse? Here's what I think:

First, it's important to note that no human is neutral. We all have opinions on everything that happens around us even if we choose not to voice those opinions. It is therefore unrealistic to expect anyone - even a journalist - to be neutral. True, some journalists work very hard to appear neutral, and I'll talk more about that later, but let's start with this question: when we talk about national issues - especially politics - should we seek to be neutral and balanced? Or should we rather seek to be objective?

Objectivity means forming your opinions based on the merits and/or demerits of each individual situation - not based on a like or dislike of the parties involved. To illustrate, here's an analogy. You want to buy a car. Two people are advising you. Ama says buy a Mercedes. Kofi says buy a BMW. You have to make a choice either by being neutral or being objective. Being objective would mean you don't just take the advice of the person you like best, or the one you have known longest, but you analyse the two cars, assessing their performance, comfort, price, and suitability for your unique purposes. You would then pick the one that ticks the most boxes and satisfies the greatest number of your needs.

Being neutral on the other hand, would mean you look at Kofi and Ama and say to yourself: "Well, I took Kofi's advice on which house to buy, so now, let me take Ama's advice on which car to buy".

As a broadcaster, if I choose to appear neutral in my criticism of political parties, that would mean I must look for equal amounts of negative things to say about all parties, or in some cases, play it safe by saying nothing negative about ANY party. If from Monday to Wednesday, I have been criticising the NPP, neutrality and balance would warrant that from Thursday to Saturday, I force myself to find something about the NDC to criticise. That is forced balance, which is dishonest, because it does not accurately reflect reality. No two parties are equally good, or equal bad.

Being objective however, means I must look at every story and dispassionately state the good AND the bad about it - no matter the party involved. That means if the NPP is not making any sense about affirmative action one day, I will criticize them all day. I won't take an artificial pause halfway through the show to find something negative to say about the NDC, just so some people's false sense of balance is satisfied.

Objectivity means acknowledging that Bawumia is right about our economy, but wrong about AfDB. It means clarifying that Dumsor may not be Mahama's fault, but it is his job to fix it. Objectivity is much more difficult to achieve than neutrality, but I owe you all my best efforts, and so I can't take the easy way out by coming here every morning and feeding you false balance. If I really wish to be of service to you, then my only option is to be objective. If it means I end up being tagged as anti-government, or anti-opposition, then so be it. Ultimately, that says more about the government and the opposition than it does about me.

In Ghana, we take our politics very seriously, but I get worried that we may not be getting the best out of our political discourse because of our misguided demand for neutrality and balance. As a citizen, my recommendation is that you assess political views on a case-by-case basis and decide whether you agree or disagree on each individual issue. If you take a position based on who is expressing the view, rather than what is being said, you might be doing yourself a disservice. Mahama can't always be wrong, and Akuffo-Addo certainly is not always right. The world doesn't work that way.

My name is Kojo Yankson, and I am NOT neutral. That's because I'm too busy being objective.

GOOD MORNING, GHANAFO!