[partomniscient]

At a fundamental aspect, that's what journalism is though - some individual noticing something and writing down what they percieved, its always biased. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

The linked article is way more informative and in depth compared to the link in the original HN post.

[ImPostingOnHN]

The linked post seems to spend all its time advocating for one position without taking even a moment, much less equal time, to even explain the other position.

[partomniscient]

WTF is people's obsession with the 'other position'. Sometimes there is no other position. It's just people complaining that someones opinion doesn't align with theirs.

An apple tree has 2 apples on it. It's a fact. There is no 'other position'. So sick of narrow-minded idiots/bigots. The article I linked to has way more factual information than the Reuters one.

The government is trying to legislate something it can't control. The whole situation is stupid.

[ImPostingOnHN]

These are also facts:

- The post in question is about legislation which has opinions on at least 2 sides: for it or against it.

- The post in question openly advocated for 1 of the sides while effectively ignoring the others. It's not more informative, it's just someone announcing a lot of their opinions. Their opinions aren't additional information, and thus are not informative.

- Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them obsessed or narrow-minded or a bigot.

> The government is trying to legislate something it can't control

This suggests that you consider unbiased journalism to be journalism which agrees with you. That's the outside perspective from someone who, unlike you, doesn't feel one way or the other on the legislation in question (it doesn't affect me).