shadowfax wrote:Only "OK?" :p

Depending on the language and times, OK is as good as it gets.
Wikipedia : Okay

Stuggi wrote:I have to agree/disagree on this point. Some few journalists still care about being factual and precise, and as unbiased as possible, but most I've come across just pick a side that's closest to heart for them, and then proceed to beat that drum, while still maintaining the opinion and idea of a lack of bias to not lower their own trustworthiness in the eyes of others (and often themselves)..

I think that we still refer to those folk as admen, but that they suffer from the delusion (and sometimes the outright hypocrisy) that they are journalists. Sometimes they're attempting to fool you, sometimes they're jsut fooling themselves.
A true journalist (was my point) is not one that is unbiased (as that person does not exist), but one that recognises and exposes his biases to the reader, so that his biases can be taken into account.
Stuggi, on another thread, you complained that inexpensive machines are being compared to the acme of the field to point out the shortcomings. That is a tried and true method (as I've described earlier in this thread) of journalistic criticism. It compares a new offer to a known quantity, and tests it's aspirations to greatness. It isn't comparing them as equals, and isn't pretending to. It is measuring the performance against a high water mark.