Comment by leereeves
6 years ago
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.
You investigate specific claims. For example, take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu". You could report on people making this claim, and state that others disagree. That can be considered an example of unbiased reporting, but it's nevertheless problematic as it may leave a reader with the impression that all reported-on claims are equally valid.
Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.
edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611963
1 reply →
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.