> The accused have denied participation and "organizations dedicated to press freedom" (are they experts?) have denounced the charges I'm pretty sure that, by

> The accused have denied participation and "organizations dedicated to press freedom" (are they experts?) have denounced the charges I'm pretty sure that, by definition, those would probably be the most biased source you could possibly find. So no, not experts for the sake of balanced reporting. If the article is going to include their opinions, it might as well include the opinion of a random police officer, or at least a lawyer who has dealt with similar cases. > Guilty until proven innocent? Nobody said that or implied it. Trump may be president, but in case you weren't aware, the country's legal and judicial systems are no different now than they were a week ago. What I am saying is that fair journalism shouldn't assume either guilt or innocence in the absence of facts. If you disagree with that then I'm not sure there's much I can say or do to convince you otherwise.