4 ms·
> ...said it was difficult to demand transparency from the people and institutions the paper reported on when their organization was not being forthright itself
by justintocci 11y ago
> ...said it was difficult to demand transparency from the people and institutions the paper reported on when their organization was not being forthright itself.
Does anyone else see a contradiction here? By not knowing who the owner is, no reporter can bias any article for or against the owner. If they never find out then they'll have the only unbiased publication in history. That should more than compensate for 'lack of transparency'.
- darkr 11y ago> Michael Schroeder, described as a manager of the company. It seems that management (and presumably that extends to senior/chief editors) are aware; and those are usually the ones who dictate what is covered and how.
- obstacle1 11y agoBy not knowing who the owner is, nobody can verify the existence of a pipeline from friendly editors upwards, whether or not stories need approval from upwards, whether or not certain stories were commissioned by those upwards, etc. Complete transparency or bust, especially in an organization like this. The issue of individual reporters biasing individual articles is extremely small potatoes. Unfortunately, it is what most people think of when thinking 'media bias'. The much more serious issue is larger systemic bias where reporting about {X1,...,Xn} potentially never even sees the light of day, or is systemically edited in particular ways, without anyone other than top people knowing why.