undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmejutoco5y ago0 comments

I am conflicted about this one. It is possible to think of situations where reporting two opposing opinions as equally valid is not neutral but instead legitimizes an extremist opinion. Overall it is easier for the journalism medium, since it does not annoy any advertisers; and it has this objective air. I am not sure if there is a better solution.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

chrisseaton5y ago· 1 in thread

I think it might be done to more of an extreme in the UK than people are used to elsewhere.

For example the BBC will report a headline like <Man "walks on moon">, and some people react to that like 'why is it in quotes are they saying they don't believe it?' What they're doing is reporting that they have been told by a source that a man walked on the moon. The source may be the President of the United States, but they're still reporting what the source told them, because they weren't there they don't know they didn't see it with their own eyes. They just know what they were told and so they quote that.

It's a principle, and sometimes principles look funny but the point is you always do it... on principle.

mejutocoOP5y ago

Totally agree with the example you give, with quotes.

My comment was directed more towards news where they would report, following your example, <Group a says "man walked on the moon", group b says "nobody was ever in the moon">.

When it is reported in this way it feels a bit lazy, under the pretense of reporting on the "facts" ("Somebody said something" is a fact too, but were we on the moon or not?)

I guess all I am saying is sometimes reporting from the perspective of "there are two sides" (for every issue) is not neutral. It is an instance of False dichotomy, and removes all nuance on the debate (only options pro or against)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse