re: #710 reine.de.tout

I made up the 99% to make my point.

I know you did. That’s why I let you know how far off that figure was. The reporter would not be able to use the solution you suggested. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a reporter saying that some people say the holocaust happened, and some don’t. That fails in the reporter’s duty to inform the public of the truth.

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?

We’re not talking about the legal system. I have no idea why you’re bringing it up.

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 don’t know why you feel this way, though. What value is there in a reporter not fact-checking someone’s claim? If someone says something false, why shouldn’t the reporter state that it is false?