Should the media and academia be forced to indulge every idea even if it's a lie or bigoted?

Academia has left-wing bias. Even academics admit it. Wikipedia co founder has admitted that the site is biased. Truth does not matter. Upholding Social dogma is important to avoid being canceled by the left wing mob and losing their job.

No, we do not compromise with those kinds. Or be willing to give them that degree of understanding. 

So did you ever call out 60 minutes?

“Indulge”?  Allowing only certain opinions and not others is discrimination.   Social media is NOT  NEWS.     News medias have been passing off false “editorials” as actual news for decades. THAT is wrong and should be illegal.  The problem is it seems many today don’t know what the difference is. 

Liberals have twisted the truth so much for so long they wouldn’t recognize it if it jumped up and smacked them in the face. 

Not until 1987.  Republicans revoke the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

The main purpose for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints requiring the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

Since 1987 there have been studies showcasing proof that the demise of this FCC rule contributed to the rising level of party polarization in the United States specially for the Republican party with ABC Radio executive Ed McLaughlin signing Rush Limbaugh in 1988 and Fox News being founded by GOP member Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch strictly for a 'conservative audience' in 1996.

At the time members of Congress declared that the members of the FCC three appointed by Ronald Reagan and another appointed by Richard Nixon where trying to "flout the will of Congress" calling the decision "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical" while the FCC considered the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

In 2000 Republicans revoked the the personal attack rule and the "political editorial" rule which was still upheld. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air.

The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Certainly not.  I'm an academic. and we don't do this, nor do we have any obligation to do it.

The media have a responsibility to point out that something's a lie.  The major papers and broadcasters regularly do so, as their readers and viewers know.

They do already. Even though I think its an injustice to the country. We have fallen about as low as can be.