re: #706 Obdicut

That’s not true, though. The deniers claim to be holocaust experts as well, and they’re united in saying that the Holocaust is a lie. So it’s really not 99%. It’s 99% of the real experts, but judging who is and who is not a real expert— I don’t see how you can do that without the reporter entering his ‘opinion’ into it.

Even calling it ‘Holocaust denial’ is biased, in that it indicates something exists, the Holocaust, which is denied by others. And that’s a good thing.

I made up the 99% to make my point.

The legal system here has a process by which they will recognize people all the time as “expert” witnesses, that is, people whose work or field of study has provided them with sufficient expertise to speak with some authority on a topic. And yes, judgment plays into it. But bias? A reporter will report this and that, and should not indicate one way or the other which one he believes is more credible. The editorial staff will take care of that, and present reasons why, etc.

I’m not saying it’s easy to do, or that it gets done all the time. I’m saying it’s what reporters should strive to do, and editors should strive to ensure in stories that are presented as straight news stories. At least, that’s how it was for a long time, it’s no longer the case at all. People readily accept in their news stories reporter’s assessments and evaluations, and they accept it without question. Me? I take everything I read with a grain of salt, and make sure I do my own research for understanding those things I want to understand; I do not take a reporter’s word for anything.