I hate to be the one to tell you you sound like a Trump apologist today, Andrew, but that is simply not how journalism works, in practice and also in law.
Example:
Summary: tortious negligence means you should be careful and can be careful but aren’t careful.
行為人已否盡善良管理人之注意義務，應依事件之特性，分別加以考量，因行為人之職業、危害之嚴重性、被害法益之輕重、防範避免危害之代價，而有所不同。
Summary: exactly how you should “be careful” depends on the context, including what kind of job you have. Not every kind of work can be held to the same standard.
新聞自由攸關公共利益，國家應給予最大限度之保障，俾新聞媒體工作者提供資訊、監督各種政治及社會活動之功能得以發揮；倘嚴格要求其報導之內容必須絕對正確，則將限縮其報導空間，造成箝制新聞自由之效果，影響民主多元社會之正常發展。故新聞媒體工作者所負善良管理人之注意義務，應從輕酌定之。
Summary: when you consider exactly how a journalist needs to be careful, you need to keep in mind that freedom of the press is essential in a functional democracy.
倘其在報導前業經合理查證，而依查證所得資料，有相當理由確信其為真實者，應認其已盡善良管理人之注意義務而無過失，縱事後證明其報導與事實不符，亦不能令負侵權行為之損害賠償責任。
Summary: therefore journalists are not considered to have been negligent if the facts they report turn out to be less than 100% accurate, as long as they did not shirk their duty to perform reasonable fact checking.
惟為兼顧個人名譽法益之保護，倘其未加合理查證率予報導，或有明顯理由，足以懷疑消息之真實性或報導之正確性，而仍予報導，致其報導與事實不符，則難謂其無過失，如因而不法侵害他人之名譽，即應負侵權行為之損害賠償責任。公眾人物之言行事關公益，其固應以最大之容忍，接受新聞媒體之監督，然新聞媒體就其言行之報導，仍負查證之注意義務，僅其所負注意程度較為減輕而已
Summary: of course this doesn’t mean they can commit libel with impunity, just that their role in society needs to be respected.
(It’s from a 2009 district court judgement citing a 2004 supreme court judgement, 93年度台上字第851號. In the district court case, the plaintiff sued two newspapers that reported a member of his family had had clandestine meetings with a criminal, citing an anonymous MJIB source. 
The plaintiff said there’s no proof that it’s true, and if it is true it shouldn’t have been reported anyway because it’s a state secret. The plaintiff lost, and the source was not divulged. If anyone knows a more recent case that contradicts this, I’m all ears.)
I’m sorry, I totally understand and respect your point, but that last one made me chuckle.
Men make 94% of work suicides. Men make up 93% of work fatalities. Men make up 81% of all war deaths. Men lose custody in 84% of divorces. 80% of all suicides are men. 77% of homicide victims are men. 89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime. But I continually see articles like the one i mentioned as a rally cry for how men treat women. If you give me a specific incident or some law or lack or legal rights women have, I will happily look at it and go to bat for equality. But i’m not ok with seeing a continual bashing of the male gender when most of us are decent human beings.
So I think here is where we have our problem. You get vilified for being yourself (“down with men!”), and I understand why and how that’s a problem. But then you see something that seems to be a continuation of it (“look at these sketchy men!”), so you equate it with what you’ve gotten used to.
So how is anyone supposed to write about the sketchy men who do exist, if we all need to avoid any kind of suggestion that might trigger (I’m looking at you Ibby) negative reactions in men who feel oppressed due to frequent vilification over the last few decades and constant vilification over the last few months?
I know there’s a problem, but I don’t see Ms. Chang as the equivalent of someone who makes up a satanic abuse ring in a pizza parlor and nearly gets someone killed by a vigilante because of it (i.e. a fake news writer).
@Rockefeller
Regarding surnames, what do you think of this?
Currently, most couples give the child the surname of the father […]
And yet–
Following traditional French custom, Quebec women did not change their legal names upon marriage, but were referred to by their husband’s surname in common speech. This latter practice fell out of favor following the Quiet Revolution, and spouses now retain their surnames after marriage in all contexts. A name change for marriage is difficult or impossible to do if desired, as requests to adopt a husband’s name after marriage are typically denied.[6][7][8]
Iirc even Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau (Justin’s wife) had to jump through some hoops to have her married name made official.
The problem is, how do you define organic, and how do you define artificial?
When this sort of problem arises, people tend to say look at (more or less) stone age tribes that were discovered in modern times, for they are living replicas of our ancestors! 
But when you look at them in detail you find a surprising amount of variation in cultural practices. 
You would really need to study humans who grew up without other humans to see exactly what our nature is, but even then it would be influenced by wolves or whatever species raised the human children. 
So actually, you would need an empty room with a food dispenser, but then the design and functioning of the food dispenser would be influential, not to mention that it would be a cruel experiment. 
There’s just no way to be absolutely certain about human nature, but we can be certain about our uncertainty, and thus it’s not unreasonable to speak of artificiality in any given culture. 
Actually, let’s talk about one of the most famous third world countries, Myanmar. After decades of military rule, one day poof! They had a parliament. And if you ask them what that was like, they’ll tell you at first they thought it wasn’t for real, so they (the members) just went through the motions and didn’t dare to speak their minds about anything. After a while, they realized the military actually wanted them to speak, because the military was aware of the fact that it couldn’t run the country by itself (or could but not very well).
Fast forward a few years, and you still have a terrible situation in the country overall, with widespread poverty, ethnic strife (to put it diplomatically), and so on. And people speculate about whether “the Lady” is really as free as she looks, because the military is still there and still powerful. Even if she is as free as she looks, there are still limits to what she and her allies can accomplish in the near future.
Does this prove democracy itself is a sham?
Similarly, if you raise an animal in a cage, you can “set it free” and watch while it continues to behave as if the whole world were a cage. Yet we know from observing wild animals that that isn’t exactly their nature. (Ymmv depending on the species and the size and design of the cage.)
Utopianism comes in different flavors, and the flavor you’re talking about (the genocidal kind) is worth watching out for, definitely. But how is it not utopian to say just take discrimination out of the laws, and everything is fine?
As you pointed out, men are at far higher risk of various things than women, despite theoretical equality. I absolutely agree that we should care about that and try to do something about it.
Btw if you really want equality in law, here’s your first assignment:
Act of Gender Equality in Employment
Article 5
In order to examine, consult and promote matters concerning gender equality in employment, the competent authorities at each government level shall set up committees on gender equality in employment.
The committees on gender equality in employment referred to in the preceding paragraph shall have five to eleven members with a term of two years. They shall be selected from persons with related expertise on labor affairs, gender issues or with legal backgrounds. Among them, two members shall be recommended by worker and female organizations respectively. The number of female members of the committees shall be over one-half of the total membership.
Matters concerning the organization, meeting and other related issues of the committees referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed by the competent authorities at each government level.
In the case of local competent authorities which have already set up committees on employment discrimination, they may handle the related matters referred to in the Act, provided that, the composition of these committees shall be in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Senators are supposed to be crusty old men. It’s what the word means! 
And you can always change it or go by another one. I’ve never heard of anyone refusing to call someone a name they asked to be called.
You can’t always change your name.
then like I said, women would dominate the work force if they can work equally for less. It’s a ridiculous notion that a simple econ 101 course would have taught anyone could not be true or we would see it. In a competitive work market, wages are determined by supply and demand for labor. Both the people hiring and people providing labor are price takers…so if women are taking jobs for less than the market value of wages compared to their counterparts. They are doing so willingly or are intrinsically bad at negotiating wages.
Oh boy, now you’re sounding like someone whose name starts with J! 
Think about this. There’s no law stopping blacks or Asians from teaching English in Taiwan, yet we know the discrimination is real. Does that mean blacks and Asians are just bad negotiators?
There are businesses that hire mostly or entirely women. Do they save money? Probably, on average. Can everyone follow their lead? No. It depends on what kind of business you have and what kind of talent is available. (I’m not really interested in this line of argument btw, just pointing out that it’s not black and white.)
Icon is correct, it’s not fiction, and we have discussed this before.