Journalistic irony

I do love science. And the media. And the combination is simply hilarious:

On Nu.nl I read about a study on the quality and impartiality of journalistic pieces on science as reported by the BBC. Apparently, BBC journalists have a tendency to want to voice alternative theories or ideas when it comes to reporting on scientific results. So, if some researchers are unable to establish a link between let's say autism and vaccination, BBC journalists tend to overreport on studies and ideas that voice the opposite regardless of the lack of scientific proof of these counter ideas. As Knights of the Principle of Impartiality, I think this is a noble effort that might be applauded if it would not have been so entirely backwards.

You fail to see the humor in this? I understand. But it gets better. The proof is in the pudding, because after reporting on the study on the quality and impartiality of journalistic pieces on science, the journalist of Nu.nl (Mr. A. Nonymous) states: 'At least, this is the conclusion of .....' (dit is althans de conclusie van...) So, in reporting on this study, Mr. Nonymous shows himself to be a minor Knight of the Principe of Impartiality by casting some doubt on the results of the reported study. If only he would have gone all the way...