Tertle950 - Scrolling WMs da best on Nostr: Hm... Okay, I'll concede the point a bit. Here are parts of (using your example) a ...
Hm... Okay, I'll concede the point a bit.
Here are parts of (using your example) a war that can be reported on without the presence of your own opinion:
- The death counts
- The places directly effected
- Leader opinions on opposing country
- Expert opinions on potential ramifications
- Citizen opinions on what is happening to them personally
The last three are tricky, though, because even though they belong to other people, they're still opinions. To be completely neutral, you have to be careful to include *every side*, because if you only shine the spotlight on a few, you are leading people to agree with them because you are not making them aware of the alternatives.
Gotta get the republicans and the democrats. And the leftists. And libertarians. Punks? Catholics? *Actually* including *every side* is a fool's task. The end result is usually that it's all the opinions of (somewhat?) normal people.
Normal people can be wrong.
That is why "centrist" is a bias.
Here are parts of (using your example) a war that can be reported on without the presence of your own opinion:
- The death counts
- The places directly effected
- Leader opinions on opposing country
- Expert opinions on potential ramifications
- Citizen opinions on what is happening to them personally
The last three are tricky, though, because even though they belong to other people, they're still opinions. To be completely neutral, you have to be careful to include *every side*, because if you only shine the spotlight on a few, you are leading people to agree with them because you are not making them aware of the alternatives.
Gotta get the republicans and the democrats. And the leftists. And libertarians. Punks? Catholics? *Actually* including *every side* is a fool's task. The end result is usually that it's all the opinions of (somewhat?) normal people.
Normal people can be wrong.
That is why "centrist" is a bias.