🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@MichaelPorter

Just for clarity my **opinion** is that the articles bias and the conclusions that leads to is likely one I agree with... I mean there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists in the right, so it is very likely an opinion I likely would agree with... It still has absolutely no place in a news article.

@kdorse

@MichaelPorter @kdorse

> You have a lot to say about an article you didn’t read.

No, I dont.. in fact I made quite clear I have nothing to say about the content of the article, particularly cause I couldnt get past the cringe to read it.. thats ALL I said... thats not a "lot" thats very little....

> PressProgress leans left, but they are reliable journalists

That is a contradiction.. you cant have a political lean in your journalism and still be a reliable journalist... that is contrary to journalistic integrity by its very nature. That said, it is the norm in journalism these days and with few exceptions there is very little journalism that lives up to the standards of that name.

> And there’s no bias in the first line of the article - just a straight reporting of facts, ugly as they are.

Sounds exactly like what someone would say who has bias and wants their bias confirmed... It was an expression of opinion... Not a presentation of facts.. facts would be the events themselves, who said what, what actions were taken, without an a preferred interpretation sold along with that. That is not at all what the tone of the first few lines convey.

@plantarum

I didnt say my issue with the first line was that I didnt agree with it.. I said the issue with the title, firstline, and name of the agency, espouses bias as an intentional part of their reporting. I cant take any article seriously that goes out of its way to abandon journalistic integrity.

When I agree with the bias, as I do here, doesnt change the fact that bias, intentional bias, has no place in news... I dont want to read commentary disguised as news telling me what to think, even if it is something I genuinely do think. I want it giving me objective facts and leaving it up to me to do the rest.

@MichaelPorter @kdorse

@MichaelPorter @kdorse

As i said i didnt read the article. There was so much bias in the first line i couldnt stomach it.

@JonnyT

Let me try to explain myself a bit better, after reading a few opinions on this and thinking about it myself...

So as an example in america the following would be a normal usage of the term:

Someone: "Would you consider giving me a raise"

Boss: "Sure its on the table, tell me why you deserve one?"

Here we are using "on the table" to mean "It is something i am willing to discuss, I havent dismissed it"

Which is totally in line with the british usage.

In congress it is used more formally to "discuss a thing later".. it is partly used this way because it is intended as a contrast to being "on the floor" which means whatever is currently being discussed. But it is not being used to say "we are dismissing this" we are saying the same thing "sure this is something open for debate, so lets add it to the list of things that we need to resolve so we remember to come back to it later"

Its pretty much the same meaning in terms of every day use, in fact identical. It is only in the formal rules of congress/parliment it is applies slightly different despite still sorta meaning the same.

@grammargirl

@JonnyT

Reading a bit further and thinking about this. It actually isnt a difference in language at all. Americans use the british version of the pjrase and meaning in every day life. It is only in congress itself the phrase appears to be used different. Though even then it is in a sense the same meaning from a certai pov.

@grammargirl

@JonnyT

Sorry i misspoke. Wasnt saying it didnt have meaning. Was trying to say the meaning may not be as different as they appear on the surface.

@grammargirl