View Single Post
Old 07-01-2014, 07:48 AM   #15
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe View Post
Yes, it should be factual. And having good evidence and reporting what is factual according to the evidence is not a bias. It is not a bias reporting that the earth is not flat.
It is bias reporting when all you publish is an unverified and *unverifiable* assertion. Anonymous sources? People involved in negotiations they are legally committed to keep confidential whispering from behind closed doors?
Are those verifiable facts? NOT!

Those are closer to the flat-earther position than to any factual geographical reporting.
Like flat earthers, they are not reporting veriable facts, just *uncritically* echoing what somebody else is telling them. Taking as literal gospel what they're fed because it fits their world view and if they challenge it they might end up finding fault with their religion.

Textbook definition of bias.

Last edited by fjtorres; 07-01-2014 at 07:55 AM.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote