Really?

In the days I grew up, journalism went something like this.

"Police records showed that Mr. Smith entered Mr. Jones's house at 12.45 pm. At 1 pm, cameras in Rissik street showed Mr. Jones walking alongside Miss Smith. The last evidence showing Mr. Jones alive was a security camera video showing Mr. Jones entering McDonalds."

Can you please tell me how a factual report like that can possibly be biased? Real journalism recounts only the facts with no emotional language, no opinion, and if it is hearsay, it is written "Mr Retief explained what he saw. Of the crowd of 10 people watching, five confirmed what Retief saw, while the other four saw the opposite."

When something is reported factually, it is absolutely and utterly not biased. It is simply presenting factual information. What the reader reads into it is quite another matter.

When the weather man says that the sun will rise at 6.45 am on a particular morning in a particular area, that is fact based. How it is biased?

Comparing journalism to science is not rediculous. If you were educated in journalism in America or the UK, I understand why you have that view.

However, my late father had his degree in 1930 from the Sorbonne in Paris. He also had degrees in law and journalism. Believe me, he understood how to word things accurately.