3 ms·

It’s entirely possible to be 100% factually accurate while still presenting a slanted view of the world. The stories they choose to cover or not cover can paint

It’s entirely possible to be 100% factually accurate while still presenting a slanted view of the world. The stories they choose to cover or not cover can paint a picture all on their own, not to mention which angles of which stories they focus on, which facts they choose to present in the first paragraph vs further down the article etc. I’m not saying they (Reuters, NYT, WaPo) don’t do much better fact checking than most outlets but there’s still a wide gulf between “no outright falsehoods” and “truly unbiased coverage”. I’m not entirely sure the latter even exists.

crazygringo 3y ago
Of course, and I entirely agree. But that's not what the commenter I was responding to was complaining about -- they were complaining about large, big-picture inaccuracies occurring in most news articles. And that just doesn't seem to be correct, by and large. But you're absolutely right that choosing what to cover and what to emphasize is a conscious choice, and that there is no such thing as neutrality there.