3 ms·

There is always more than one side to a story, particularly when it involves conflict between two or more groups - say, employees and an employer. Covering onl

There is always more than one side to a story, particularly when it involves conflict between two or more groups - say, employees and an employer. Covering only one side of a story is dangerous, particularly when that coverage is used as a source or inspiration for further coverage, which then itself gets used, and then eventually edited into Wikipedia articles because all these reputable news sources are reporting it and that's all that's required for "truth" over there, and so on, and so on.

ank_the_elder 11y ago
You can trivially see that's not the case. Look at anti-vaxers vs. science. Is this two sides of the same coin? Or just two unrelated topics? Namely, science-based medicine and a fringe group of lunatics commenting on a topic they don't understand. So, there you have one trivial counter-example. Hence, your assertion is false. To reiterate what I've stated: not every topic has more than one side. This circus-like setup is especially deceiving if you let popular opinion pick them - this apocryphal rule not only manufactures false dichotomies, but also allows for nonsense to challenge well-established science. Especially when it comes to the so-called hard sciences - some topics are not under discussion - we can choose to discuss and argue all day whether the fundamental theorem of calculus is true or not, but since it's a theorem it's already been proven well beyond any opinion's reach.
- Cyberdog 11y ago
  Congratulations, you pedantically found an exception to my rule. There's no way a labor dispute as as cut-and-dry as calculus, however, or even vaccination science. And in the latter case, I think there should be reporting on what anti-vaxxers think and why, if for no other reason than to document that these people exist and hopefully help construct a framework to change their minds.

ank_the_elder 11y ago

You can trivially see that's not the case. Look at anti-vaxers vs. science. Is this two sides of the same coin? Or just two unrelated topics? Namely, science-based medicine and a fringe group of lunatics commenting on a topic they don't understand. So, there you have one trivial counter-example. Hence, your assertion is false. To reiterate what I've stated: not every topic has more than one side. This circus-like setup is especially deceiving if you let popular opinion pick them - this apocryphal rule not only manufactures false dichotomies, but also allows for nonsense to challenge well-established science. Especially when it comes to the so-called hard sciences - some topics are not under discussion - we can choose to discuss and argue all day whether the fundamental theorem of calculus is true or not, but since it's a theorem it's already been proven well beyond any opinion's reach.

Cyberdog 11y ago
Congratulations, you pedantically found an exception to my rule. There's no way a labor dispute as as cut-and-dry as calculus, however, or even vaccination science. And in the latter case, I think there should be reporting on what anti-vaxxers think and why, if for no other reason than to document that these people exist and hopefully help construct a framework to change their minds.