So, if there happened to be a really clear-cut, one-sided case out there, how would an unbiased news organization report on it?

"Apple filed response to DoJ." <Link to response.> Possibly a summary of claims.

Sorry, but if the situation is clear cut then a good news source should say exactly that.

Just publishing X did Y and alleges Z leads to the current situation where creationists, global warming deniers and so on are given space in news reporting as if these issues were to be decided by personal opinion and not by facts.

No, absolutely not. An awful news reporting agency would say "creationists think X, but evolutionists rip them to shreds." That is bad news reportage. Good news reportage would say "creationists say X, evolutionists say Y, the facts that are evident are Z." This is clearly not what CNN have done with this piece. It would be nice if they had.

The simple point is that engaging in inflationary and imprecise colloquial language like "totally rips it to shreds" renders the article pretty much useless for communicating clear facts, especially if there is one clear winner. Don't tell me who's right; that is pointless and communicates only opinion. Tell me the facts, and make them as stark and as clear as possible. "Totally rips it to shreds" is not a fact; it's vague cant wrapped up in metaphor. Bad reportage.

I think you're conflating style and substance a little too fully. I can appreciate your objection to "ripped it to shreds," but that's not a very substantive objection to the reporting/analysis.

Your desire not to be told who is right is problematic. Just because opinions on the shape of the earth differ doesn't mean the news media must refrain from telling it's readers the truth. If you want to compare press releases and come to your own conclusion you don't need a staff of reporters for that.

That would work well in situations involving facts—politics, for example. It's relatively easy to fact check a claim like, "since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history."

But creationists and evolutionists make claims about the distant past. There are no facts available, we have to evaluate evidence and reasoning. Even if, as in this example, the evidence strongly favours one side over the other, a journalist is ultimately conveying his own assessment of the "debate".

This court case is even less amenable to fact-checking. So far, the court hasn't made any findings of fact or legal rulings. All we've got is arguments from each side. About the only thing a journalist can do is evaluate them. So if you insist that reporters avoid inserting their opinions into the story, then duaneb is right - the only fact available is that Apple filed a response.

If the DOJ-Apple case were really important to me, then yeah, I'd read the filing myself and form my own opinion from the primary source. But to me, this case isn't that important. It's interesting, and I'll keep an eye on it as it progresses, but I don't want to invest a lot of time and energy in it.

That's why I prefer Philip Elmer-DeWitt's approach to duaneb's. It gives me the facts along with the reporter's experienced if not expert opinion. It's clear which is which, contains enough argument in support of the opinion that I can evaluate DeWitt's reasoning. It's a bit snarky for my taste, and I view that as a weakness in DeWitt's argument, but ultimately it doesn't matter whether I agree with him. I've learn something without having to become a reporter myself.

> Sorry, but if the situation is clear cut then a good news source should say exactly that.

I'm open to this on a case-by-case basis, but "Apple tore DoJ to shreds" is most certainly not one of these.

That said, this was opinion, so I wouldn't expect it to be anything near news.

As noted elsewhere, this is aopinion piece and thefore is entitled to present one side of the story without attempting to summarize the entire situation. It's like the difference between a political editorial and political coverage in a newspaper.

The important question is whether the one side it presents is presented coherently and without fallacy.

And, has been noted elsewhere as well, where on the page does it say the piece is just an opinion piece?

I'll save you the trouble: it doesn't.

So, while you maybe right, CNN doesn't indicate in any way that this is the case.

The header: "Apple 2.0 - Covering the business that Steve Jobs built" shows the category that this blog post is in.

While it doesn't point out in big letters that this is an opinion piece, this article is in the category of a well established Apple opinion blog in their tech blogs category.

It's also pretty clear from the writing style that this is an opinion piece.

Sure, it's probably easy to tell for someone who's a regular reader of CNN. However, I believe that most people - even several (if not many) from HN - will see the CNN header, then read the article and assume it's CNN. They should be A LOT clearer about it being an opinion piece.