While he clearly did his homework, talking to people inside and outside the court system, Glaberson doesn't suggest that having a favorable or unfavorable view of the courts are equally valid viewpoints.
Instead, what he writes is this:
"The examination found overwhelming evidence that decade after decade and up to this day, people have often been denied fundamental legal rights. Defendants have been jailed illegally. Others have been subjected to racial and sexual bigotry so explicit it seems to come from some other place and time. People have been denied the right to a trial, an impartial judge and the presumption of innocence."
That very unbalanced judgment just so happens to be strongly supported by the evidence he goes on to present. As such, Glaberson's series shows that there's a principle that, for good reporters, trumps balance every time: the truth.
