Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? This isn't a case of one side being sane and the other crazy, or even both being crazy. It's two sides of a business dispute. Are you really going to draw your conclusion based on what just one side says?

> Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it?

I was broadly agreeing with this in the parent post:

> Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?

I am not saying that we should not seek other sources, just that quoting the union on one side of the dispute is not better than a reporter paid by the journal on the other side. Even worse, because a journal has some incentives to keep a reputation for being truthful, while communications from a union are purely partisan. (That’s not some criticism and unions play an important role; journalism is just not it)

The point is, two wrong points of view do not magically average out to something right. Ideally someone reporting with some distance would be better.