3 ms·
Of course it's falsifiable: pick a bunch of topics that negatively affect them (stories about them, their key advertisers, etc.) and diff it against a source th
by pydry 5y ago
Of course it's falsifiable: pick a bunch of topics that negatively affect them (stories about them, their key advertisers, etc.) and diff it against a source that has no interest.
If there is no difference they're neutral. If they downplay or ignore - not so neutral.
>What makes a news outfit "neutral" is their adherence to journalistic standards of neutrality, which include both a firewall against executive interests and an editing process designed to temper the biases of individual journalists.
Which involves more than just talking about neutrality. It involves executives being willing to pay the price when that neutrality would violate their interests - financial or otherwise.
- woodruffw 5y agoThat, or they don't just have a reporter working that beat. Outlets frequently choose to allocate reporters based on the likelihood that another outlet will beat them to the presses. Or more saliently: your supposedly "disinterested" source has an undisclosed positive interest. Reuters has historically typified the kind of reporting that's labeled as "neutral." We have no particular reason to believe that their ex-CEO has had any undue influence on their newsdesk's neutrality.