>From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Brin-L) >Subject: Re: Venezuela >Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:23:57 +1000 > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Are you familiar with The Guardian? The Guardian that wrote, only a few > > days after September 11th, that if you've always hated Americans, the > > attack was no reason to stop hating them? Maybe you feel that way, but >it > > tends to make me consider them a less than credible source. > > > >A good newspaper carries a wide variety of opinions. The Guardian does >that, >so does Melbourne's The Age, so does the NYTimes. We the readers can decide >whether an article is credible or not. Not all articles are good. I thought >that one was. >
A better definition of a "good" newspaper is one that carries news articles in as unsensationalistic format as possible. They do not editorialize while presenting the news, unless doing so on a page that clearly says they are doing so. A good example of this would be USA Today. They rarely politicize their news stories and try to remain as neutral in their reporting as possible. The paper's editorial opinions remain on the editorial page, where they belong. An example of a paper that does sensationalize their news would be The New York Post. FYI: The term for a newspaper that sensationalizes and spins the news rather than presenting it objectively is "tabloid". The Guardian is an excellent paper that tries to present all sides of a given story, but it _is_ a tabloid. Didn't Ronn work in the media? What is your opinion of The Guardian? Jon _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
