Well I think you are arguing two distinct things. On the one hand, you are arguing that Sonious should have done "due diligence" in gathering more personal information about this individual from friends and family to include in the article. On the other hand, you are arguing that Sonious shouldn't have included his own opinion on this person's faults and those of his associates.
Regarding the first issue, I already addressed that I think but let's go down that road for a moment and assume that Sonious went and interviewed people in this guy's home neighborhood to learn more about him as a person. Again, I would question why that would be important to the average furry reader, but assume for the moment he did that and learned that this guy was accused by his neighbors of some heinous crime, or that he had been expelled from school, or was a drug addict? If the idea is that we want a fuller picture of him as a human, well now Sonious needs to publish this additional information about him to give the more full picture. It's just as likely that he could learn such terrible things about this individual that he could learn that he had loving friends and family. So my point is, in this instance, I don't think any of that is relevant enough to say Sonious didn't do his proper due diligence by not discovering such information, which wouldn't really be relevant to furry news. It might be different if he was a major public figure or person in a position of authority, but I don't think such non-furry info is all that important here.
To the second point, I suppose it depends on whether you think Flayrah is a news site that should allow for opinion/punditry type commentary or should only present facts. That's really up to the management and the readers who provide the traffic and dictate what they want, so I suppose it's essentially a market decision. In that context, I don't think one can say it is "wrong" as the market would dictate whether that was acceptable or not.
Well I think you are arguing two distinct things. On the one hand, you are arguing that Sonious should have done "due diligence" in gathering more personal information about this individual from friends and family to include in the article. On the other hand, you are arguing that Sonious shouldn't have included his own opinion on this person's faults and those of his associates.
Regarding the first issue, I already addressed that I think but let's go down that road for a moment and assume that Sonious went and interviewed people in this guy's home neighborhood to learn more about him as a person. Again, I would question why that would be important to the average furry reader, but assume for the moment he did that and learned that this guy was accused by his neighbors of some heinous crime, or that he had been expelled from school, or was a drug addict? If the idea is that we want a fuller picture of him as a human, well now Sonious needs to publish this additional information about him to give the more full picture. It's just as likely that he could learn such terrible things about this individual that he could learn that he had loving friends and family. So my point is, in this instance, I don't think any of that is relevant enough to say Sonious didn't do his proper due diligence by not discovering such information, which wouldn't really be relevant to furry news. It might be different if he was a major public figure or person in a position of authority, but I don't think such non-furry info is all that important here.
To the second point, I suppose it depends on whether you think Flayrah is a news site that should allow for opinion/punditry type commentary or should only present facts. That's really up to the management and the readers who provide the traffic and dictate what they want, so I suppose it's essentially a market decision. In that context, I don't think one can say it is "wrong" as the market would dictate whether that was acceptable or not.