> conversation on the topic of news epistemology has always irked me because i detect an implication that there exists an "unbiased" recounting of events. This

> conversation on the topic of news epistemology has always irked me because i detect an implication that there exists an "unbiased" recounting of events. This is naive. I would say, rather, that there is an ideal unbiased recounting of events that is approached with various degrees of fidelity and we all sort of agree to call reporting that is reasonably close to this ideal as "unbiased". This is not naïveté, since pretty much everyone readily admits that truly unbiased reporting is impossible. But some people are doing their best and some ... are not.