This is what actual reporting looks like.<p>Look at most news stories these days. There's some kind of conflict, two parties don't agree on something, and they report both "sides" of the story. Because the writers don't know what really occurred, it's common that a news story will give equal weight to lies and truth (or semi-truth and semi-truth).<p>In the insanity of normal society, this is actually promoted as a good thing. News stations pat themselves on the back for being "fair and balanced", and use it as proof of being "unbiased".<p>It's the opposite of unbiased, when there's no bias there are no "sides". You can't take both sides in a conflict, each "side" being a heavily biased opinion in itself, and combine them together to create a lack of bias. That's not how it works, two conflicting partial truths don't equal a whole truth, two conflicting partial truths just create cognitive dissonance (FUD).<p>Now look at this news story, it's quite different from what I described above. It's proper investigative journalism where the goal is cutting through opinions and second-hand information to find the actual truth. It's a major accomplishment and something to be applauded.<p>In my heavily-biased opinion, it's the job of a free press to seek and report the truth, to create new stories like this one, not to report "both sides".<p>And to illustrate when I'm saying, look at what happens to be the #1 story on my Google News at this moment: <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/middleeast/gaza-food-truck-deaths-israel-wwk-intl/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/middleeast/gaza-food-truck-de...</a><p>CNN doesn't know exactly what happened, there's conflicting stories, and all we know for sure is that a bunch of hungry Palestinians were just killed while trying to get food. Here's what CNN found:<p>According to Palestine it's Israel's fault.<p>According to Israel it's Palestine's fault.<p>Yes, clear as mud. It's the perfect kind of reporting for adding to the controversy and acting like there's no clear right & wrong, or viable solutions to the conflict. It's how I would do things if I wanted to extend the war as long as possible. However, I'm biased toward peace and preservation of life, so it's quite clear to me what's causing food riots and subsequent massacres.