It’s the register, an outlet that makes the daily star look like a bastion of journalism. What do you expect.
MediaBiasFactCheck rates them as "High" on their factuality scale: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-register-uk/
(though MediaBasFactCheck's statement that "we rate The Register Least Biased based on minimal editorializing" seems to be based on their lack of a political bias, but El Reg is certainly biased towards iconoclasm, but that's the way I like 'em)
That seems like a strange perspective. Isn't the whole point of a news source not to be editorially biased? They give you the facts, and you use those facts to draw your own conclusion(s).
Journalists are trade professionals whose job is connect dots and follow leads to try to surface deeper issues and ideas in their reporting. They should adhere to facts, but they should also be using their immersion and expertise to contextualizing those facts and make them understood to an audience who isn't so immersed or expert.
If they can do that earnestly and with the transparency that lets you see where they're working from, and with a style that helps you read/engage, they're doing good work.
er...what? what news source do you feel does this?
Eg: Minerals and Resources sector feeds that endeavour to convey all the relevant factoids in the industry domain - "On <this date> <that company> stated <something>".
That's a verifiable fact stated baldly - it's readily provable whether or not a listed company released a statement .. and there is nothing there about whether what the company claimed in their statement was "true".
Later that same feed might release a third party independant technical report that may or may not support the claim made.
Two weeks later the feed might report that an employee at the third party company was arrested for fraud.
That word does not mean what you think it means.
The "-oid" suffix denotes a thing that seems like X, but is not X (e.g. "asteroid" -> "seems like a star, but is not a star (it's a space-rock) - or "cuboid": "seems like a cube, but is not a cube".
A factoid is a statement based on an assumption—something that has never been confirmed.
No assumptions are made about the veracity of statements by publicly listed statements and such feeds never state that "Today Rio Tinto aquired property X" instead they seperately report
* Today Rio Tinto stated they acquired property X (link to statement)
and
* Today the mineral resources dept. of the Canadian NWT reported a change of ownership in property X to Subsidiary Holdings ABC12 Ltd.
Thank you for your unthinking condescension, factoid is exactly the word I meant.
When all the websites were reporting on my "discovery" of a security issue, The Register has been the first (by over a week) and one of the few to ask me by email about the details and the only to publish article with correct information. I know they weren't rushing to publish it as they were far from the first. Also they have been fast to respond back.
Some other website that I will not name have made a lot of mistakes in their reporting and when asked for fixing, the reporter replied 3 days later and complained that my article has been too complicated! I also have a small suspision that they copy-pasted it from some much smaller website without mentioning it, as that website published earlier than them and had the same exact mistakes, which were very hard to make, unless you decided to skip random paragraphs and stop in the middle.
All the other websites have copied from that one without ever checking the authoritative source that was my article and I know this because I explicitly had put a warning to clarify the misinformation :).
Some other big website emailed me after all the other ones have published and I answered their questions and I even told them to not put X as a title as that's not what the issue is about as I saw others doing that. Guess what? They did that exact title :).
International audience might interpret it exactly like that.