Rifkin, Millen, and Cobb contend that through a more appropriate use of discourse, such as storytelling, the tensions inherent in applying neutrality will be obviated. The hypothesis may be valid, but the premises and analysis presented as its basis are questionable. The Rifkin analysis assumes neutrality to be composed of the elements of impartiality and equidistance and these elements to be contradictory by definition. In practice, this contradiction leads to a paradox. In response, it is proposed that neutrality must include impartiality by its very nature, but equidistance is not a similarly necessary inclusion. The commentary proceeds to elaborate on the shortcomings and errors of logical presentation as well as disagreements with points asserted by Rifkin and colleagues. Some of these errors result from overanalysis in support of a hypothesis and others from misanalysis of phenomena, like the component structure of neutrality. Strong support is offered for their larger goal, namely, the careful explication of neutrality and the development of more effective forms of communication.