CNN's Christiane Amanpour, in one of the networks ad nauseum house ads, says she will never use a "false, factual equivalent," and, "I believe in being truthful, not neutral."

A false equivalent I understand as a concept. But a "false, factual equivalent"? I can't make sense of that. Can anyone give me an example? 

 

Speaking as a former journalist myself, wouldn't it be more prudent to say, "I believe in being truthful AND neutral"? Does being neutral automatically exempt you from being fair and balanced? 

Being neutral simply means to recount newsworthy events to the public without making either commentary, opinion or analysis. The facts in and of themselves ARE neutral; it is the formation of opinion and/or analysis that can color or bias the issue. 

(And let me be clear here, properly done, analysis IS neutral. It is easy for non-professionals to walk so close the opinion line that they cross it, thereby no longer having a neutral article and pure examination of the facts.)

 

Poor Christiane has lost the plot on this one. 

Not related to Thailand in general or Chiang Mai in particular

//CLOSED//