> but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
And this is where the article is trying to bias the readers.
As I said elsewhere: If this article was "Elon Musk is a shitty guy, and look at all the shitty stuff he does", I'd have no objection to any of this. Present all the examples, make the case, and let the reader decide.
But showing someone violating the law, and then pointing out possible other unrelated violations, you're trying to bias the reader.
If this were on trial and I were on the jury, and the prosecutor used such tactics, I'd be biased against the prosecution. There's a very good reason defense attorneys get judges to rule that such stuff can not be presented to the jurors.
So nobody can report facts if it makes the subject of an article look bad (or good)? This idea of unbiased reporting that you have is ridiculous. This isn't a court of law, and not everything needs to rise to that standard.
If you want something free of bias, go read an NTSB report. Even then, that's not a guarantee!!
Stories that involve peoples' motivations and politics are never free of bias. The fact that you think this is possible might betray some bias of your own.
The issue is only one side of the bias makes the HN front page. Absolute foaming at the mouth nonsensical "articles" about Tesla with terrible predictions, sometimes just outright fake news that someone just made up which BlueSky, Reddit, BlueAnon and HN just lap up, which cheapens HN.
> So nobody can report facts if it makes the subject of an article look bad (or good)?
If the specified goal of the article is to make the subject look bad, then of course it's fine. I've said that in many comments, and I say it again here.
And this is where the article is trying to bias the readers.
As I said elsewhere: If this article was "Elon Musk is a shitty guy, and look at all the shitty stuff he does", I'd have no objection to any of this. Present all the examples, make the case, and let the reader decide.
But showing someone violating the law, and then pointing out possible other unrelated violations, you're trying to bias the reader.
If this were on trial and I were on the jury, and the prosecutor used such tactics, I'd be biased against the prosecution. There's a very good reason defense attorneys get judges to rule that such stuff can not be presented to the jurors.