Don’t forget the homeless mental guy by the subway entrance. Or the guy in the subway talking about Armageddon. And my crazy aunt who thinks ppl will genocide Latinos cause she didn’t see any on Star Trek.
Impartial? About a fact?
Why even give them the time of day….oy vey.
Remember when the BBC “balanced” the views of climate-change scientists by interviewing climate-change denier Nigel Lawson, thereby appearing to give equal weight to their opinions?
If one person says it’s raining, and another says it’s sunny, it not the journalists job to print both things, their job is to look out the fucking window.
11 comments
…and then push them off of the edge
Don’t forget the homeless mental guy by the subway entrance. Or the guy in the subway talking about Armageddon. And my crazy aunt who thinks ppl will genocide Latinos cause she didn’t see any on Star Trek.
Impartial? About a fact?
Why even give them the time of day….oy vey.
Remember when the BBC “balanced” the views of climate-change scientists by interviewing climate-change denier Nigel Lawson, thereby appearing to give equal weight to their opinions?
Three years later they put that right – by [interviewing him without any scientists to challenge him](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview).
[deleted]
This is a stupid decision.
If one person says it’s raining, and another says it’s sunny, it not the journalists job to print both things, their job is to look out the fucking window.
Bbc
Burying british credibility
Basic science jumps off the edge
Maybe in Monty python style