It's unfortunate that reality is often biased. Sometimes, there simply aren't two sides. Frankly the "teach the controversy" stance has led to a lot of negative knock-on effects for traditional journalism, as they are often up against op-eds masquerading as journalism. You can be impartial without representing "both sides." For instance, I don't think history books that paint the Third Reich as exclusively negative aren't being impartial.

I'm not says this is the case necessarily here, but it is something to remember.

Its the difference between a history book with the tone of "then the evil nazis who were the spawn of satan did this and caused suffering because they're evil nazis"

as opposed to

"then the nazis did this and caused a significant degree of suffering widely regarded in the forthcoming decades as among if not the most evil acts ever committed"

The difference is taking things personally, as opposed to a third person observational perspective. Both may come to the same conclusion, but one is hoping you'll be convinced while the other just represents what is known about the reality in question, letting the meaning of it speak for itself. There is even inclusion of opinion, but not personally taken, just noted as occurring.

> widely regarded[1]

By whom? Weasel words.

Are the Nazi's actions bad only because of the "widely opinion" other people held?

The keyword is "evil", which is subjective, therefore an opinion. A Nazi Officer, for example, would disagree with your opinion whether what they did was evil.

Correct.. BUT whoever bring up the nazis first loses the argument sorry ;)

You're not wrong :) that's my fault. I was hoping to find something pretty uncontentious.

And if you had taken the effort to scroll down one or two months more you would have found: https://imgur.com/dSz0iCg

The Intercept has been consistently critical of Biden and other establishment Democrats which isn't surprising given its progressive slant. The difference, in contrast to Greenwald's framing is just, that this story he wanted to go with is complete and utter rubbish.

Those are not stories about Biden, but about someone trying to make a story about Biden in the last month which apparently backfired.

The Intercept is likely pointing to stories like those:

> Biden’s Promise Of A Deportation Moratorium Is Nowhere In His Platform

> Controversial Data-Mining Firm Palantir Vanishes From Biden Adviser’s Biography After She Joins Campaign

> With Tara Reade’s Allegations, Joe Biden’s Campaign Is Only the Latest Chapter of America’s Accountability Problem

Your evidence doesn't address the statement you are apparently refuting. It only shows that, A. There are a lot of negative Trump stories, which would make sense for a neutral platform, and B. They use unprofessional tone in their headlines, which is certainly a reasonable thing to criticize.

They're claiming they're publishing articles negative on Biden as well, but I don't see any of those from the last few months (you know, the times that matter with the election looming). Do you have any examples?