I see quoting experts as a trick that allows subjectivity under a fake pretense of objectivity, because you can always find experts who agree with any opinion, and quoting the ones you want to promote is the trick. In this sense, saying directly, “Napoleon committed a mistake,” is more honest because it’s subjective and doesn’t pretend to be objective.
My main point is that every type of speech involves creating selective focus, and selective focus is always subjective. So the entire idea of objective reporting is nonsense.
Regarding what the best norms are in general, it’s tricky and complex. I do agree that some reporting can be more deceiving, less factual, or whatever than other reporting, but it’s all very context-dependent and complex, and it cannot be captured by simplistic rules.
I see quoting experts as a trick that allows subjectivity under a fake pretense of objectivity, because you can always find experts who agree with any opinion, and quoting the ones you want to promote is the trick. In this sense, saying directly, “Napoleon committed a mistake,” is more honest because it’s subjective and doesn’t pretend to be objective.
My main point is that every type of speech involves creating selective focus, and selective focus is always subjective. So the entire idea of objective reporting is nonsense.
Regarding what the best norms are in general, it’s tricky and complex. I do agree that some reporting can be more deceiving, less factual, or whatever than other reporting, but it’s all very context-dependent and complex, and it cannot be captured by simplistic rules.