[oregontim]

For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert.

Interesting point: is it really just a matter of opinion? Back in the 1970s when I was a mainstream journalist, it was a matter of credentials, not opinions. Positions of authority, degrees, publications, and books written were considered credentials. Editors were pretty hard-nosed about who I got to quote. If I'd quoted crackpots as if they were experts, editors would have gone straight to the credentials and tossed them out. If I'd tried to cherry pick my experts for one side of an opinion, editors would have caught that too, and tossed that out.

Sure, it's been decades since for me (I changed careers), but I keep up, and journalistic ethics haven't changed. True, there's a lot more noise from non-journalists exercising opinions and even propaganda that sometimes looks like journalism. That's regrettable. But New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, other major newspapers, plus news from the major networks and serious cable news are still prestigious jobs, hard to get, and steeped in the culture of journalistic ethics. IMO.

It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.

I agree with you on this, but every real journalist would agree with you that reporting only the second, in this case, is biased, and bad journalism.

And I don't see that happening so often. Do you? I don't believe the editors of the major news organizations allow it to happen. Yes, there are crackpots with amplified voices, but they are still crackpots. And there are those quasi-state-media organizations that spout party line instead of journalism. Finding this kind of imbalance is evidence of poor journalism or politics disguised as journalism (e.g. Fox News, IMO).

I'd recommend the media bias map work at adfontesmedia.com. They do a pretty good updated review of where the major news organizations fit on two variables, reliability (fact) on the vertical, and political position on the horizontal.

[oregontim]

For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert.

Interesting point: is it really just a matter of opinion? Back in the 1970s when I was a mainstream journalist, it was a matter of credentials, not opinions. Positions of authority, degrees, publications, and books written were considered credentials. Editors were pretty hard-nosed about who I got to quote. If I'd quoted crackpots as if they were experts, editors would have gone straight to the credentials and tossed them out. If I'd tried to cherry pick my experts for one side of an opinion, editors would have caught that too, and tossed that out.

Sure, it's been decades since for me (I changed careers), but I keep up, and journalistic ethics haven't changed. True, there's a lot more noise from non-journalists exercising opinions and even propaganda that sometimes looks like journalism. That's regrettable. But New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, other major newspapers, plus news from the major networks and serious cable news are still prestigious jobs, hard to get, and steeped in the culture of journalistic ethics. IMO.

It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.

I agree with you on this, but every real journalist would agree with you that reporting only the second, in this case, is biased, and bad journalism.

And I don't see that happening so often. Do you? I don't believe the editors of the major news organizations allow it to happen. Yes, there are crackpots with amplified voices, but they are still crackpots. And there are those quasi-state-media organizations that spout party line instead of journalism. Finding this kind of imbalance is evidence of poor journalism or politics disguised as journalism (e.g. Fox News, IMO).

I'd recommend the media bias map work at adfontesmedia.com. They do a pretty good updated review of where the major news organizations fit on two variables, reliability (fact) on the vertical, and political position on the horizontal.