Self-study
Despite the best efforts of journalists to be objective, Support it is inevitable that their own biases will enter their reporting, even if inadvertently. ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████
Summary
The author concludes that we need a trained editor to look over journalists’ work to detect and remove their biases, for the purpose of making reporting as objective as possible.
Why?
Because it is inevitable that journalists’ own biases will enter their reporting, even if the journalists try to be objective.
Notable Assumptions
Here are a few assumptions in the argument:
The author assumes that there’s no other way of detecting and removing biases from journalists’ work besides having a trained editor review the work.
The author assumes that a trained editor will be able to detect and remove the biases in journalists’ work.
The author assumes that objective reporting is a desirable goal.
1.
Each of the following is ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████
a
Journalists do not █████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ██████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if journalists DO eliminate all of the biases that enter their reporting — then there’s no need to have a trained editor review the work.
b
It is imperative ████ █████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if it were NOT imperative (necessary) that reporting be as objective as possible — then it’s not imperative that we remove biases, and so we don’t need to have trained editors review journalists’ work.
c
Objectivity in reporting ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if objectivity in reporting is NOT undermined by the presence of biases — then we don’t need to remove biases in order to make reporting objective. So if our goal is objective reporting, we don’t need to have a trained editor try to remove biases.
d
Trained editors are ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if trained editors are able to detect NONE of the biases of journalists — then having trained editors review for bias will not make reporting as objective as possible. It would not be imperative to use trained editors for review if they are unable to do what we want them to do.
e
Journalists' reporting that ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████
Not necessary, because whether reporting is “taken seriously” is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. The argument is concerned with whether trained editors can remove biases from journalists’ work; we have no reason to think that whether the work is taken seriously has any affect on the ability to identify and remove biases.