{"id":12409,"date":"2021-01-24T16:20:15","date_gmt":"2021-01-24T16:20:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiofree.org\/?p=154057"},"modified":"2021-01-24T16:20:15","modified_gmt":"2021-01-24T16:20:15","slug":"a-classic-example-of-biased-political-reporting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/01\/24\/a-classic-example-of-biased-political-reporting\/","title":{"rendered":"A Classic Example of Biased Political Reporting"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em> has always been regarded as a reasonably responsible newspaper. Although editorially it was generally a supporter of the misnamed Liberal Party, its opinion pieces generally try to pursue an open mind. Its editorial commentary of course generally favoured one side of the political divide rather than the other. The writers were generally frank about their perspective, favouring one side or the other. Many of their writers strove for a fundamentally neutral stance, overtly favouring neither one side of politics nor the other.<\/p>\n One could always agree or disagree with a writer\u2019s perspective. As the old adage had it, your interpretation is your own, the facts however are sacred. Thus, it was possible to read a column by a writer from a different political perspective, but except the thrust of their argument because the facts that were presenting led one to a particular conclusion.<\/p>\n The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em> has, however, moved away from the position of the facts being sacred, leaving their interpretation to be a matter of preference. The specific example which brought this vividly to mind was the recent article by the Herald<\/em> international editor, Peter Hartcher.<\/p>\n