Will Johnson wrote: But of course it's not that simple, either. What we "report" *is* *less* than what's published by reliable, third-party sources -- because we don't report everything. We select. And as soon as we start selecting, no matter how objective and policy-driven we try to be, we have to worry about -- we get to engage in -- selection bias. I gave an example of a reliably-sourced fact which I don't think should be in the [[Natascha Kampusch]], because it's a scurrilous allegation that I doubt is true, and it doesn't help (and probably hurts) the victim and her mother, and it doesn't help any of our readers, either. The only way to cover it "properly" is with far more words' worth of explanation than it deserves, so the wise course of action is to leave it out, just as we leave out what Natascha had for breakfast this morning, and what color underwear she favors.

Andrew Gray wrote: Yes, and let's not derail a discussion of uncaught vandalism by sidetracking in a bunch of other things.