> One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it. T

> One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it. This is true for well-reported or over-reported events too. It's always an individual who reporting things, and thus the process of reporting itself involuntarily bakes in the opinion or ideology of the agent reporting the issue. It's up to us to take whatever we'd want to as credible. Also in the context of Internet it is more likely to be the absolute truth, after Streisand effect and everything else is done with. My assumptions in situations like this: No smoke without fire. Just did a small search on Youtube and found out that reports of civilians been crushed under Panzers is TRUE [1]. And now the discussion on testing credibility and stripping out emotions from reporting standards sounds bullshit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HmSwJEuFjxk http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H... [Edits: Added a link to a video of individual being crushed under a anti-riot Panzer vehicle. Not very graphic, but serious.]