The author of the article has a good point on the limits of knowledge: journalists seldom ponder their argument's proneness to fallacy. The author also well emphasises that it is important to have at least a little bit of information about how the news story was created. This gives the reader a greater possibility to assess the plausibility of the story.

However, the author did not cover the issue of interpretation: the journalist always writes from her personal standpoint. This raises several questions: can the journalist write "neutral" news stories? how her political and cultural background affects the news story? how could she clarify the background for the reader?

Knowing how the journalists know what they know is not enough. I would like to know something about the journalist's scheme of interpretation in order to understand the news story she wrote.