Not intending to stray away from GQ territory here. Could someone tell me whether this article is an editorial or a news item? It reads like an editorial but I can’t find where it is labeled as such.
IANAJ but this falls into the category of what the Washington Post (my local paper) might call “analysis.” Not just the facts, but conclusions based on facts. I wouldn’t call it an editorial, because editorials generally state a position then use news/facts to make the argument, or just opinion.
The first two paragraphs use a lot of inflammatory language, not normal for hard news. Then it appears to be actual reporting, complete with direct quotes, but sprinkled with opinion and the drawing of conclusions.
Because it is not labeled as analysis or an editorial, I would label this “biased reporting.”
Don’t forget that the Independent is not a U.S. paper. It comes out of a different editorial culture and policy. Papers are not interchangeable all over the world. Not to mention that websites are not newspapers, and labels or even page position that would give context to a print article are often totally missing.
In short, as a U.S. reader, I don’t have enough information on this to make any meaningful statement. Let someone who’s from the U.K. offer an opinion.
Not from the UK but I have read some of the Independent. I’d call it analysis at the very least, and perhaps opinion. I don’t know anything about Patrick Cockburn (this would be a much easier call to make if it was Fisk) but the style to me is analysis.
Though I would also probably call it biased reporting. Again, try reading some of Fisk’s stuff and you’ll see what I mean, especially if you pull the Afghanistan stuff out of the archives from 2002 or so.