[fyltr]

isn't this an attempt at 'neutral journalism'? I am not old enough to be able to compare to what journalism might once have been, but it seems that the current trend in journalism is to be as factual as possible, without adding in one's own biases. Also, I often hear stuff like: don't put too much weight on what X says, he was wrong about Y. Lower journalist wages, a need for immediate reporting that undermines in-depth research and risking your own rep every time you put more than 'facts' out there just don't give any incentive to do more than pick out the quotes you want to use.

[TuringTest]

> isn't this an attempt at 'neutral journalism'?

Neutral journalism is not presenting the claims of all opposing parties, it's fact-checking the claims of both sides without a bias for any of them.

If one party says the truth and the other side is not, it's still neutral to repeat only the claims of the first one.

[pzxc]

Exactly. As the saying goes, if one side says it's raining and the other side says it's not, it's not the job of the journalist to report both. It's the job of the journalist to look out the fucking window to see if it's really raining or not.

[sixtyj]

> a need for immediate reporting

This is the key. Nobody wanted to read yesterday’s newspaper and the same applies to recent digital media world. Media are pushed to deliver almost instant news feed.

Common news stories are often updated several times an hour. This leads to burnout for the journalist covering the event.

This constant focus on breaking news is so common and devastating on society that it has inspired books like Newport’s The Deep Work.

[dfxm12]

No. Knowingly reporting lies (including lies by omission) isn't "neutral".

[ericjmorey]

"current trend in journalism is to be as factual as possible, without adding in one's own biases"

The facts chosen to include in a report are chosen with bias. There's no neutral subset of facts about any event.

[goatlover]

That view tends toward sophistry and relativism. It can't be true that no event has a neutral subset of facts. If I'm reporting on some discovery in astronomy or math, what biased facts would I be choosing? There would need to be some sort of controversy about the discovery where choosing some subset of the facts supports one side over the other. But this assumes both sides have an equal claim on the facts, which is often not the case.

And while humans can't be without bias, there is a big difference between trying to be factual while leaving your biases aside, and having an agenda or outright reporting propaganda.

[watwut]

> isn't this an attempt at 'neutral journalism'?

Yes.

> it seems that the current trend in journalism is to be as factual as possible, without adding in one's own biases

No. It is not factual at all. Factual journalism would check facts and said 'Hormuze is not open' or even 'Trump lied again'. The 'neutral journalism' or 'both sides' or 'they say they say' is bias on itself - and harmful one at that.