https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvruJpdjiVs

In the law, judges can often be finders of facts. Once these facts are discovered then the law is applied. Consequently, if one controls the facts then they control the outcome. Thus, playing games with the admissible facts becomes a constant tactic for attorneys. This makes it what actually constitutes the legal facts extremely important.

So likewise, when the the People go to make decisions they need facts. That is the role of the journalist; to discover and present the facts. What is so interesting here about Jorge Ramos's position is that journalists should be playing politicized games with the facts they present to the People.

In other words, journalists should go from reporting on what happens in the arena to becoming men and women of the arena.

What do you think? Do you want journalists that play politicized games with the facts that they present to the People? Or do you want investigative journalists that discover and report the facts no matter what they are? How can Steem change the economic incentives and behaviors of the journalists?

<b>JORGE RAMOS</b>: There are certain instances in which you have to take a stand. For instance, you did it. In that first question in that first debate when Donald Trump was confronted with the fact that he had insulted women and you took a stand, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should put aside objectivity; I am saying neutrality is not an option.

<b>MEGYN KELLY</b>: Let me ask you about that, Jorge, because that was not me taking a stand. That was me taking a question. I identified an issue and found it worthy of a question. It wasn't 'Here's what Megyn Kelly thinks of you, Donald Trump.' Is that what you're advocating, that we as journalists should inject our opinions and say that's racist or that's sexist? 

<b>RAMOS</b>: No, what I am saying in certain instances that I just mentioned -- including racism, sexism, and discrimination -- I think we have to take a stand.