I think the point was more that an institution like the times doesn't want to appear to be doing anything other than providing plain facts that don't lead people into thinking one way or the other about a given thing so that their reporting can be trusted as not being propaganda.

It's the difference between saying "stupid asshat Donald Trump, who's obviously a criminal, was found guilty of the fraud we all knew he did." And "A judge convicted Donald Trump of fraud." That's not propaganda, that's just stating plain facts that don't try to leave any impression on the reader which is important for trust.

[–] drphungky@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you! It's crazy to me that people can't understand appearance of bias and why a paper would want to avoid it. Do people not work in industries with professional ethics? There are whole courses taught in this stuff when getting a degree in journalism, it's debated in newsrooms and by editors, even in op-eds writing commentary about the news. Did people just fall asleep during the Trump years as people were figuring out how to handle that?

You know what terrifies me? Someone saying, unironically, "there is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias." Russian disinfo and the Trump campaign appear to have won - we live in a post truth society where not only do facts not matter - they don't exist. Why bother reporting only on them?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

"You know what terrifies me? Someone saying, unironically, “there is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias.” Russian disinfo and the Trump campaign appear to have won"

So much damage has been done because of those people. We live in a time where it seems like the majority of the population just expects all media to be propaganda which basically "allows" you to stick with your chosen propagandist. :(