re: #717 Sergey Romanov

The problem with trying too much to be unbiased is creating a false balance where there is none. As the above examples with evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers show. Reporting on what the kooks say is unnecessary - unless the story is directly related to denial. Otherwise each evolution or Holocaust news item would have to contain a denier opinion - because they react to all those stories. Setting up kooks against scientists is creating two legitimate sides.

Not doing that, however, requires judgment. Which is just a variety of bias and opinion.

It is NOT necessary to have a denier option.

If a story is about a new evolutionary find, the story would be about that finding. If someone then sends a letter to the editor disputing that finding, where does that letter show up? In the editorial section. If a reporter then interviews the letter writer and writes a story about the interview, then the results of the interview a presented in a straight news story, without editorial comment. If the editors then want to make further analysis of that person and his statements, that shows up in the editorial section.

But I see a LOT of news stories, from all sides, that have inserted in them various reporter biases. Maybe I can recognize it because I grew up with it. I don’t know. All I know is that it behooves everybody to become informed on topics apart from news reporting you see on a topic.