Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn’t for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that’s not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because “you have to be fair to bothsides”.
On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he’s been called a lover of puppies. Let’s meet in the middle and say he’s a bad driver.
This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It’s a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate.
The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.
Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn’t for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that’s not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because “you have to be fair to bothsides”.
On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he’s been called a lover of puppies. Let’s meet in the middle and say he’s a bad driver.
This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It’s a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate. The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.