3 ms·

Could you give an example? For example, all news articles published by Reuters have an unfounded opinion in them?

lmm 8y ago
Sure. Let's look at the top article on Reuters as I write this, which happens to be https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-foreign-secretary-hunt-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-risk-idUKKBN1KD13J https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-for... Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" - sounds like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond." which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below "DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different. I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources - but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear bright lines that separate the one from the other.

lmm 8y ago

Sure. Let's look at the top article on Reuters as I write this, which happens to be https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-foreign-secretary-hunt-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-risk-idUKKBN1KD13J https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-for... Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" - sounds like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond." which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below "DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different. I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources - but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear bright lines that separate the one from the other.