> All of them? Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't buy the inherent importance of doing selection. If I could trust that the news source includes all relevant facts they encounter, it'll be enough; I can reach my own conclusions.
The problem with this thinking is right there in the word "relevant". What's relevant? The name of the shooter? Maybe he had a history with someone in the band? What high schools did they go to? What were their job histories? Where have they lived? What weapons did the shooter use? Are they easy to obtain? Were they legal? Why or why not? Guns can be more or less effective depending on the conditions. What was the weather like? Was it normal weather for Las Vegas at this time of year? Is it ever bad enough to be a concern?
Somebody always chooses what is and isn't relevant. There is no such thing as a complete, ""unbiased"" catalog of all the facts.
The problem with this thinking is right there in the word "relevant". What's relevant? The name of the shooter? Maybe he had a history with someone in the band? What high schools did they go to? What were their job histories? Where have they lived? What weapons did the shooter use? Are they easy to obtain? Were they legal? Why or why not? Guns can be more or less effective depending on the conditions. What was the weather like? Was it normal weather for Las Vegas at this time of year? Is it ever bad enough to be a concern?
Somebody always chooses what is and isn't relevant. There is no such thing as a complete, ""unbiased"" catalog of all the facts.