Fact vs Opinion.
Einstein pointed out that what we observe can depend on where we are at any point in space and time. It’s all about our frame of reference.
Fact can be just as misleading as a poorly presented opinion? Fact needs to be complete and the observer clear concerning the circumstance, basis, objective, etc.
In science a statement of assumptions is a fundamental requirement of any proof.
In reporting, and indeed life, it appears at times much of what is served up as fact is incomplete or poorly referenced. Presented as ‘one eyed’, ‘narrow viewed’, ‘opinionated’. Often the receiver/reader is none the wiser due to the lack of alternate information. (Note 1)
In one respect places like ‘Facebook’ (not my preference) and a plethora of other bulletin boards and chat sites provide the only alternative. A more open alternative to crafted and often biased so called news services.
Increased regulation may be a ‘double edged sword’. In respect of content where do you draw the line and who regulates the content? In the extreme regulation of such open environments could serve the aims of politics and media moguls in preference to the public interest.
It is a seriously challenging proposition.
And in particular given the ‘pay for content press’ (Murdoch being just one example) is under zero, nil, absolutely no legal obligation or regulation to be non partisan, thorough, complete, unbiased or even reliable in the facts they present.
Which standard should be applied and should that be universally applied to all sources?
P.S. note 1
This is one of the reasons I both dread and revere posting on Choice. Trepidation, caution, and the reasonable proposition at least one other person has a different frame of reference encourages alternate viewpoints. Whether they are opinions or facts is less relevant than the way they add collectively to understanding. After all, is an opinion simply a fact waiting to be proven?