4 ms·

It's not that difficult: "Person X said Y", "Person X claimed Y", "Person X stated Y" are all objective. "Person X falsely said Y" is editorialising. I expec

It's not that difficult: "Person X said Y", "Person X claimed Y", "Person X stated Y" are all objective. "Person X falsely said Y" is editorialising. I expect editorialising from newspapers. Not from 'unbiased' press agencies If I'm right leaning and want to read a paper which reflects my views, I'll go for the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph. If I'm more of a leftie and want that political leaning pandered to, I'll read the same story in The Guardian or the Daily Mirror. A press agency [especially one which proclaims its "freedom from bias" on every page should] just present me with the bare facts and keep their opinions to themselves.

alkonaut 6y ago
Reporting the statement “I won the election, says Trump” Is actively pushing an incorrect statement. It doesn’t matter that it’s a bare quote. It doesn’t make a difference that it’s objectively true THAT he said so. If the statement itself is highly questionable or outright false, then a news source must either a) qualify it as untrue/disputed/... (depending on the degree), or they must choose to just not report it. That’s it. Those are the only two choices. What they cannot do is simply report he said it and “leave it to the courts” to determine whether it’s true. Freedom from bias does not mean Reuters can engage in relaying quotes they themselves suspect are false without qualification, since merely choosing to report it without comment means actively relaying a lie. It’s not “editorializing”, but still actively doing whoever is lying a favor.
- Normille 6y ago
  >It doesn’t make a difference that it’s objectively true THAT he said so. But that's exactly the point I'm making. Until the appropriate legal authorities decide the issue the claim is not objectively "false" --no matter how obvious it seems to all of us, that that is the case. >If the statement itself is ... outright false, then a news source must either a) qualify it as untrue... What gives someone working at a news agency the right to decide what is true or false? Imagine if Reuters was reporting on a high profile murder trial and stated that the defendant "falsely claimed he hadn't committed the crime"? The defendant may have been caught holding a smoking gun, standing over the victim's body cackling evilly and twirling his moustacheos. But it's the jury and the court who decides whether or not the statements made by the defendant are true or false. It really doesn't fall within the remit of a self-professed 'unbiased' news agency to decide which statements made by which people are true and which are false. Just report what they said. If the statement in question is controversial or contested, then also report the counter arguments. But I really don't want to be told who I should believe and disbelieve. I'm capable of forming my own opinions. >Freedom from bias does not mean Reuters can engage in relaying quotes they themselves suspect are false Of course they can. News agencies relay conflicting quotes from opposing parties all the time, during wars, political debate, scientific discourse, etc. "Party A claims X but Party B refutes this and claims Y". That is exactly how an unbiased news agency should operate. Once they start reporting "Party A falsely claims X but Party B confirms Y" then they are no longer impartially reporting, but editorialising --no matter how much your hate for Party A and love for Party B predisposes you to see that as the 'objective truth'.

alkonaut 6y ago

Reporting the statement “I won the election, says Trump” Is actively pushing an incorrect statement. It doesn’t matter that it’s a bare quote. It doesn’t make a difference that it’s objectively true THAT he said so. If the statement itself is highly questionable or outright false, then a news source must either a) qualify it as untrue/disputed/... (depending on the degree), or they must choose to just not report it. That’s it. Those are the only two choices. What they cannot do is simply report he said it and “leave it to the courts” to determine whether it’s true. Freedom from bias does not mean Reuters can engage in relaying quotes they themselves suspect are false without qualification, since merely choosing to report it without comment means actively relaying a lie. It’s not “editorializing”, but still actively doing whoever is lying a favor.

Normille 6y ago
>It doesn’t make a difference that it’s objectively true THAT he said so. But that's exactly the point I'm making. Until the appropriate legal authorities decide the issue the claim is not objectively "false" --no matter how obvious it seems to all of us, that that is the case. >If the statement itself is ... outright false, then a news source must either a) qualify it as untrue... What gives someone working at a news agency the right to decide what is true or false? Imagine if Reuters was reporting on a high profile murder trial and stated that the defendant "falsely claimed he hadn't committed the crime"? The defendant may have been caught holding a smoking gun, standing over the victim's body cackling evilly and twirling his moustacheos. But it's the jury and the court who decides whether or not the statements made by the defendant are true or false. It really doesn't fall within the remit of a self-professed 'unbiased' news agency to decide which statements made by which people are true and which are false. Just report what they said. If the statement in question is controversial or contested, then also report the counter arguments. But I really don't want to be told who I should believe and disbelieve. I'm capable of forming my own opinions. >Freedom from bias does not mean Reuters can engage in relaying quotes they themselves suspect are false Of course they can. News agencies relay conflicting quotes from opposing parties all the time, during wars, political debate, scientific discourse, etc. "Party A claims X but Party B refutes this and claims Y". That is exactly how an unbiased news agency should operate. Once they start reporting "Party A falsely claims X but Party B confirms Y" then they are no longer impartially reporting, but editorialising --no matter how much your hate for Party A and love for Party B predisposes you to see that as the 'objective truth'.