@pschwede The news should mostly just be inclusive of who said what, and what evidence there is for a particular story, regardless of a conclusion.

Think of it more like science. A good journal worthy paper is like journalistic integrity. In other words, it does research in order to answer a particular question, buit provides all the data, especially the contradictory stuff, and any conclusion drawn is driven by the data.

Now the problem is with journalists there is no peer review in the same sense. So **we** as readers need to be the peer review. That means when we see bias from a new organization, we deny them credibility. If we see them selecting data to support a narrative rather than concluding a narrative from the data, then we likewise deny them credibility.