[chrisseaton]

I think most news is pretty much useless without any kind of analysis, and that analysis is effectively editorial.

If I tell you a vote in congress passed, that doesn't really tell me much without saying whether the vote was expected to pass or not, or why, or what the vote passing means, etc. And that's all opinion. Even if you try to present it factually it's all judgement.

[chiefalchemist]

True. But it can still be presented as what it is, an opinion. "It is the opinion of this reporter..." or "Based on what we know and the current facts..." Etc.

Better still, "What we don't know is..." The gaps in the analysis are never pointed out. Yes, that makes it opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but then it's not analysis, and certainly not transparent in the journalism sense of the word.

The problem is, stuff with obvious _glaring_ holes gets presented as full-investigated and complete.

[chrisseaton]

I don't know if perhaps we are better off declaring bankruptcy and taking a worse-is-better approach here and not even having the pretence of unbiased media, because maybe it's not possible.

In the UK newspapers basically publicly declare their bias and everyone knows so you make sure you read a left-biased paper as well as a right-biased one.

I don't know if the wire services manage to be completely unbiased?

[chiefalchemist]

It's a start. My rub isn't news or editorial per se, but how they are not the same thing. Yet are so often not at all differentiated.

What some thinks (editorial) is not the same as facts, based on investigation.

[pgrote]

I hear you, but do you remember CNN Headline News when it started? It was perfect with no analysis needed.

You got facts ... the who, what when, where. No analysis, no spin, no entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGJh8VnHZGw

If someone were to do this today in print, audio or video, I would gladly pay $50 a month. Information only with no opinion or analysis.