The curse of “both sides” journalism

The American “quality” press got stuck years ago in a style of reporting that stressed giving both sides of a dispute without passing judgment on their factual accuracy.,

The New York Times this report via its Austrian partner Der Standard reporting on the murder of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent. (1)

The story could have started out giving the background facts, like: There is widespread public outrage over the murder of a Minnesota woman by a masked ICE Gestapo goon who deliberately shot her in the face and killed her and the available evidence strongly indicates it was deliberate murder with no legitimate justification. (An Austrian paper would add that there is a presumption of innocence until the accused murderer is found guilty in court.)

Instead, the NYT story opens with these three paragraphs, with my strikeouts (in italics) and my comments in italics:

Mounting outrage over an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s killing [more accurately: apparent murder with no obvious legal or self-defensive motivate] of a woman in Minneapolis spilled into streets across the country Saturday, as crowds of protesters mobilized against what they called the excesses of the Trump administration’s mass deportation [more accurately: campaign of mass intimidation against citizens and voters in Democratic cities].

The "Ice Out for Good" campaign held demonstrations in small towns and major cities, including some that have been central targets of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. The protests came three days after an ICE agent in Minneapolis shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen at the wheel of a car, during an encounter in South Minneapolis.

Almost immediately, conflicting interpretations of the killing — which was captured in video from several angles — divided the country along ideological lines. State leaders in Minnesota described the ICE agent’s action as an unjustifiable use of lethal force against a civilian who was trying to leave the scene [a characterization strongly supported by the available video evidence]. For their part, Trump administration officials claimed that Good was a left-wing domestic terrorist who tried to run over the ICE agent, and that the agent acted in self-defense. [However, Trump officials have offered no clear evidence whatsoever for those claims.]

The Times proceeds to say, “Almost immediately, conflicting interpretations of the killing — which was captured in video from several angles — divided the country along ideological lines.” Without adding any appropriate clarification that the Trump version is backed by no available supporting evidence.

Gee, what happened? Well, this side says X happened and the other side says Y happened. Who can tell which side is right? We’re just reporters, we can’t bother to explain the axtual state of the evidence available to the public.

Notes:

(1) Hippensteel, Chris (2026): Anti-ICE Protests Spread Nationwide. New York Times/Der Standard 01/11/2026. <https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000303588/anti-ice-protests-spread-nationwide> (Accessed: 2026-11-01).