The full front page picture was fair, yes. It was just that I
can't stand to read TNP that day because of the image, but there is
nothing wrong with the picture. The biasness only refers to the
stories inside.
It's good to provide predictions and analysis of matches (that
they have done well). These segments have been clearly separated
from the reports - they are either placed in marked-off columns or
are indicated by a headline that signals that it is an
analysis.
A 'Man U Double' segment certainly couldn't be a prediciton
because the match is already over, neither could it be an analysis
of the match becasue the article seems to suggest that Man U is in
fine from and is almost guaranteed of winning the Champs
League.
When it's neither a prediction nor an analysis, then it must
either be a report or a commentary, right? If 'Man U Double' is
part of a report, then it is outright prejudice. However, if it's
part of a commentary, there is nothing wrong, but TNP should
indicate that the article is a commentary as clearly as possible
lest readers think that it is a report and mistake it for bias.
These are the 2 possibilities - either report (then TNP is very
bias) or it's a commentary (then TNP is not wrong, but should
improve its differentiation) and I am leaving these 2 possibilities
open.
I may be right that TNP is bias in 'Man U Double', but I admit
that I may be wrong too. But based on my years of reading TNP
sports report, I can't help but to say that there's a tinge of
biasness every now and then in their reports.
Do note that biasness is present in The Straits Times too in its
local reports (written by a local journalist), just that it occurs
on a less frequent basis. I would like to point out to a certain
Rob Hughes who has a tack for being bias towards Chelsea
in the earlier part of the season.
