3 ms·
There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in
by fzeroracer 8y ago
There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another.
For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth.
Can you name me a single example of a website behaving according to the rules that you've laid down?
- coldtea 8y ago>There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another. I don't care for "some bias in one direction or another", nor I have "nigh-impossible lofty ideals". I just don't like to be taken for a fool with blatant bias -- which many outlets have, including the Guardian. >For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth. Again those things are not really relevant to what I say. You can be more left or right leaning, or be more pro-privacy than anti-privacy and still tell things like they are (including in your opinion pieces) without demonizing the other side, misrepresenting their arguments, using uncharitable interpretations, using imagery and statistics for cheap tricks, and so on. In other words, you can still report and opinion on things in good faith, despite having a bias.
- fzeroracer 8y agoI have not seen the Guardian pull anything like that in my time of reading it. That said, again, what would be an example of a charitable news outlet that does not pull tricks you claim the Guardian is doing?