@Philip Carino would you be so good as to tell me how to assess something subjective without making inference? Without having 100% of the data ALL THE TIME it is (I'll say it) impossible to do. As I said before, with regard to the stock market, even when all the data IS present assessments may vary. This is not necessarily a manifestation of bias or ill will. It is the nature of humans that we do not always agree. If your requirement for reporting requires nothing but pure facts with no interpretation at all then you're likely to end up reading nothing but periodicals on applied mathematics. Most of us realize that if you hear Yanny, and I hear Laurel it's not a moral issue. It's a difference in our ASSESSMENT of the information.
Not sure why inferencing was needed at all. If that reporter simply stated what the white house official said without adding the word "impossible" then it wouldn't be tagged "fake news". Adding such details to news reports is biased, unprofessional, and unwarranted and most probably a great disservice to readers of NYT. But liberals seem to be enjoying it very much. And probably to attract more eyes (unethical but rampant in most but all dailies). Do you understand it now? Reporting isn't about inferencing, adding your own interpretations to facts. That's not and I repeat, NEVER will be reporting at all. To end, here's a very simple definition of journalism from American press Institute: Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.
I don't defend bad journalism, nor do I support it. So as not to repeat myself I'll refer you to my previous comment. I think the journalist made a reasonable inference based on the information given by the WH official. Whether he was right or not remains to be seen, but it is by NO MEANS "fake news". At the worst, it was a poor word choice. I'm tempted to ask if you have articles you would hold up as examples of good journalism, as I'm curious to see what the standard is for you. I still maintain that inference and interpretation are not the same as bias. I'm not suggesting castles built on air is good journalism, but if the material supports it, it's not unreasonable, or evidence of bias. Prove to me that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead, and I'll show you journalism that doesn't interpret the facts.
Sadly because journalism today has evolved from just presenting the news to interpreting it, inferencing, commenting on it. That's the standard today which should have not been the case. Have you read the article? The journalists were even unapologetic that they provided their own interpretation to something that SHOULD NOT HAVE warranted it. I don't know about you but I trust Reuters and AP more than Fox or CNN. I just read new news articles from them and their real journalists there didn't feel the need to provide their own interpretations, inferences, insinuations and such to news reports because precisely it's news, not opinion. Don't defend bad journalism when you see it. Castigate it. People who tolerate this kind of journalism is what made this journalism rampant. If I wanted commentary, I'd go elsewhere. And don't go comparing stock markets analysis and interpretations as if that's news everyone can easily digest. The whole industry relies on expert's interpretation not journalists, you quoted it yourself, sundry analysts. And yes a journalist saying their own unwarranted opinion on just supposedly facts based reporting is bias.
No, there is a distinct difference between interpretation and inference, and opinion based commentary. If for some reason the US landed 50K troops in Fiji it wouldn't be bias or opinion to say "This is probably gonna affect the supply of Fiji water this summer, so you may want to think about stocking up now, or switching to another brand". Commentary would sound like "Well you know Tucker, I've always been a Dasani guy myself since I like to keep my purchases American. I just hope we're not expected to indemnify the Fiji water bottling plant, they'll be down all year. President Trump says he has ample evidence that the offending coconut was dropped by two drone piloted Fijian swallows. We're still waiting for the DNA to come back on the strand of creeper, but there's little doubt in my mind that Fiji had it coming". Interpretation, and commentary ARE NOT the same thing. If you can find news that's exclusively facts out there, even in Reuters or the AP I'll be AMAZED. Hell, even the most fact based news segment on every channel offers interpretations. The stock market report is full of irrefutable data, but it still gets interpreted by sundry analysts much differently.