Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
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.
|
So, you are saying that the Washington Post's stories about Watergate, provided by an anonymous source (Deep Throat), is proof that they were bias against Nixon? The use of anonymous sources is a long standing and wide spread tradition in news reporting. This is standard news reporting. Do you think that the news reporters should not report on a story because one side refuses to give their side?