> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important
> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...
14 minutes later
> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic
> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.
edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.
That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.
To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.
Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.
They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
What is the political orientation of a "mass gathering" (rally/protest/etc) if not its purpose? Seriously.
(Plus, Trump's rally was indoors; protests are outdoors. We've got quite a bit of data now indicating outdoor transmission is less likely.)
> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?
Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?
I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.
For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.
Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.