Comment by vertex-four
6 years ago
"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.
"Unbiased" != "Factual".
"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?
That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
It's not. You can reproduce information in an unbiased manner, but being factual involves fact-checking, which rarely yields a neutral result.
What's the more 'factual' language about the coronavirus pandemic in this case? It has to be one or the other, that's what unbiased means.
2 replies →
Not everything can be fact checked in the first place and if it can, who fact checks the fact checkers? There are numerous examples of fact checking websites being factually wrong.
1 reply →