|
|
|
|
|
by watwut
2821 days ago
|
|
Emotions don't imply moral response. Emotions may be caused also by empathy, fear, threat, gain and so on. Impartial and independent are not the same as insisting that "both sides are the same" either. In here, it is a reported a fact that killed women and children received no trial and no presumption of innocence. It highlights asymmetry between trial soldiers will (theoretically) receive and what they have done. That is perfectly fine. If the reporting made you feel like what soldiers did is symmetrical to them being on trial, then the reporting would be biased. > Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. That does not imply consumer should feel neutral about those repugnant views. If consumers feel neutral after hearing repugnant views, then journalist sugarcoated those views to make them look more innocent then they are. |
|
An excellent resource I linked above is this [1]. That's a series of historic articles from the NYT on famous events throughout history. You'll invariably find quite impartial articles, yet the facts themselves again speak quite loudly. This [2], for instance, is their reporting on the sinking of the Titanic. That is just an incredible piece of reporting. And though there are absolutely 0 emotional cues used or even implied, one can nonetheless 'feel' the story through the facts alone.
[1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/samp...
[2] - https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/archives/Disasters-Tit...