Simmo, you pay me a huge compliment by saying that my view is the antithesis of Fox's - not that I have the personal knowledge you have of this tabloid tv (I'm relying on non-Con Brian's many vehement castigations of it). Here:
ANTITHESIS: a figure in which thoughts or words are balanced in contrast; a thesis or proposition OPPOSING another; opposition; the direct opposite.
So I'm delighted to represent a contrast to anything which fails to evenhandedly portray a situation or issue. News should be news, not opinion. In the case of this topic on here, as a discussion item, it contains both fact and personal construct.
One need not be 'impartial' unless one is reporting just news - i.e., just facts. I am actually aware of and writing in terms of facts, but you're wilfully choosing to ignore the background to the current issue, which is necessary in order to discuss the topic in the round. Any partiality would be naturally disclosed in so doing, since it would point out the illegality of one party's actions against another's.
Why would impartiality be necessary? This is a discussion forum, not a news reporting desk. You won't find impartiality on the racing section, that's for sure. We favour this horse, we don't favour that. We favour this team for football, we laugh derisively at another. Life is all about partiality, or it wouldn't make a bit of difference as to who we married or who we voted for, or whether we liked garlic ice-cream or preferred strawberry ripple. I suggest that you have confused 'impartiality' with 'inaccuracy' - the first is not essential to a discussion (in fact, it is the very basis of a forum) while the other is anathema to reasoned debate.
