NationStates

Not enough impartiality. I know newscasters have personal opinions. So do network executives. But that’s where those should stay, at the personal level. News should be reported impartially. No personal bias should come into play.

Yes.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Not enough impartiality. I know newscasters have personal opinions. So do network executives. But that’s where those should stay, at the personal level. News should be reported impartially. No personal bias should come into play.

That's not really possible though and it shouldn't be attempted. Even the decision about what to report (there is a finite amount of air time after all) can indicate bias and can be used to skew or promote an agenda. The best you can hope for is to understand the particular viewpoint and perspective that the news you are consuming comes from.

Caracasus wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Not enough impartiality. I know newscasters have personal opinions. So do network executives. But that’s where those should stay, at the personal level. News should be reported impartially. No personal bias should come into play.

That's not really possible though and it shouldn't be attempted. Even the decision about what to report (there is a finite amount of air time after all) can indicate bias and can be used to skew or promote an agenda. The best you can hope for is to understand the particular viewpoint and perspective that the news you are consuming comes from.

I do realize it is very hard to do. Impartial reporting of anything. But it should be something to strive for.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Not enough impartiality. I know newscasters have personal opinions. So do network executives. But that’s where those should stay, at the personal level. News should be reported impartially. No personal bias should come into play.

The only News source that I know that isn't bias is the NBC Nightly News from what I seen when I watch them.

There is a difference between "news" and "opinion". There is also a difference between "current affairs" and "news" that by its very nature makes "current affairs" much closer to "opinions".

News and current affairs share one defining feature... that they're not olds but that's pretty much it. They don't even use the same idea of what's old. Current Affairs will probably capture anything within the last month of relevance. It can even be really subtle because it's not event driven. News, on the other hand, demands recency in terms of days... if not hours... and events. It's quite simply not news and never should be seen as news to talk about an event from last week was good or bad. To declare, for instance, the Invasion of Iraq a good thing three months after it happened isn't news. But it might be current affairs. (Although, if you had someone else make such a declaration then it's an event and so news.)

The distinction between current affairs and opinion is even more opaque than iffy questions about "when". The distinction I'm making is that current affairs seeks to contextualise and explore. These aren't the same thing. To take that Iraq Invasion example... a current affairs show would give you a whole bunch of different opinions, show you a whole bunch of different things and probably give an explanation. It may, possibly, even make a judgement about good or bad but the good current affairs show uses the conceit it's not doing that. This is not to say that the programmes don't have a moral stance, aren't pushing the viewer towards a particular value judgement, but that if it's doing so does so subtly. And whatever anyone has ever told you, it's hard to pretend to be something without taking on its essential characteristics. Opinion is just contextualisation. It's only ever there to tell you what something means.

But here's the thing...

Aeritai wrote:And in my opinion I think there isn't that much bias in journalism mostly because when I hear something about biases in news I usually think of Fox News and CNN since those two support a party they are bias when it comes to talking about politics. The news I see like NBC never have any biases unless I never noticed it.

This doesn't sound like it's referring to the news. It sounds like it's talking about contextualisation. You can't give people meanings without using biases because meaning is not an inherent quality. Meaning is an ordering, i.e. an attempt to locate something within a systematic frame of reference. As soon as you see "systematic" the word you have to think about is bias (indeed, systematic deviance is how bias is pretty much defined in statistics). Even the statement "it doesn't mean anything" is a systematic framing... it's merely telling you that there is no frame you can choose to make sense of something: it fits in none of them, not that it transcends all of them.

The news is boring and dry. You can't really do anything else with it. You write and tell it in short paragraphs chosen on the basis of proximity to events. It's possible to systematically select what events to choose but once you're reading something, usually the problem is not bias but inaccuracy. That is to say, if there's anything systematic to worry about it's incompetence. In most cases, headlines should serve you well.

(Hearing a lot of stories about black on black violence or missing white girls is probably a product of editorial selection bias but the bigger issue in this case is that you're reading crime stories to start with (all of them have no meaning). If you want to read about crime you need to read high level crime statistics and ignore all "news" stories about them.)

So... how do we deal with bias in current affairs and opinion? Well, the fault is your own for caring about it. The complaint is metaphorically equivalent to paying to watch a baseball game and then complaining about how you're watching baseball when you get there. The whole point of both is the presence of bias.

To use an example... sometimes there are headlines from NZ sites about Steven Adams and my major response to this is, "I know nothing about basketball, I don't believe you do either and while I do want to contextualise this headline I also don't want to have to become a basketball fan in order that I might do so myself." What do I do in such a situation? I go find somewhere that I do believe knows about basketball. I am, in effect, seeking bias whenever I do this. There's no problem here so why does it suddenly become an issue when I want to know if, say, Trump's incompetent? That's not a rhetorical question... although I do believe it could function as one.

US-SSR wrote:

Aclion wrote:Can't access you source but. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell ... acdfc93c59

Just checked the link again and it's perfectly fine. I call BS. Plus, from your source:

CNN's total audience in prime time was well under a million viewers--767,000--while competitors MSNBC and Fox News finished the month far ahead: MSNBC in second place overall with 1.660 million total viewers, and Fox News leading all of cable with a total audience of 2.395 million.

767k + 1.660m = 2.427m > 2.395m. What I said.

In other news, your guy still lost the popular vote by 3m, no one has read the Mueller report 'cause it's still redacted and the administration is stonewalling its release and the release of its supporting material, and it ain't over until the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says it is.

Still trying to deny that there was no Russian collusion huh? Anyways, the look on Rachel Maddow’s face was priceless! (Same with Wolf Blitzer and Chris Cuomo)

Yes, and sadly that will never change.

I think the better question will be:
Is there even a single ounce of unbiasness in the news nowadays?

-----

On a serious note, I suppose so, and it's mounting day after day. Take one example that even I fall trap into: Clickbait headlines. So say that there is something that is about Trump, or some other newsworthy politician. Then the headline will be something that is outrageous or will capture the attention, and most people (including me sometimes) will just share it just for the headlines.

Then it turns out that the body/news itself is nothing too noteworthy, and it's just your average Tuesday news. So... with the clickbait headlines among many others, I will say that it is indeed getting to the point where biasness is getting stronger.

-----

My favorite site is still Reuters. To me at least, and correct me if I am wrong, but so far, Reuters have never steered me wrong, and their news articles are pretty accurate, pretty much.

Yes. The news media has managed to get liberal sources regarded as the mainstream, leaving moderate or conservative sources as either regional phenomena(like the Dallas Morning News) or niche sources(like One America network, national review, etc.).
That being said, there are a few high-quality conservative sources- Christian science monitor, National review, etc. They're just excluded from the mainstream.

There has always been bias in the news. It's just a lot more apparant now, and the lying press are having their tactics exposed.

Diopolis wrote:Yes. The news media has managed to get liberal sources regarded as the mainstream, leaving moderate or conservative sources as either regional phenomena(like the Dallas Morning News) or niche sources(like One America network, national review, etc.).
That being said, there are a few high-quality conservative sources- Christian science monitor, National review, etc. They're just excluded from the mainstream.

You: Bias is bad and common in mainstream media

Also you: Conservative Christian Media is good

I can smell hypocrisy from a mile away, Servie

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Yes. The news media has managed to get liberal sources regarded as the mainstream, leaving moderate or conservative sources as either regional phenomena(like the Dallas Morning News) or niche sources(like One America network, national review, etc.).
That being said, there are a few high-quality conservative sources- Christian science monitor, National review, etc. They're just excluded from the mainstream.

You: Bias is bad and common in mainstream media

Also you: Conservative Christian Media is good

I can smell hypocrisy from a mile away, Servie

Oh, there are also high quality liberal sources- The Atlantic is the example that comes most immediately to mind. That was simply irrelevant to my point.

Long story, but I studied media in my lower-level college years. Bias in media has been around for centuries.

In short, everybody and everything has a bias. We all have our own perceptual filters that determine what we're looking for.

Bias isn't limited to one political party versus another, and there aren't exactly two answers to every question.

Alanis Star wrote:My favorite site is still Reuters. To me at least, and correct me if I am wrong, but so far, Reuters have never steered me wrong, and their news articles are pretty accurate, pretty much.

It's good to know someone else knows how to find the source of the reporting, which is what I was going to suggest.

I'd also suggest one concerned about biases learn how to separate opinions from facts in reporting.

95X wrote:Long story, but I studied media in my lower-level college years. Bias in media has been around for centuries.

In short, everybody and everything has a bias. We all have our own perceptual filters that determine what we're looking for.

Bias isn't limited to one political party versus another, and there aren't exactly two answers to every question.

Alanis Star wrote:My favorite site is still Reuters. To me at least, and correct me if I am wrong, but so far, Reuters have never steered me wrong, and their news articles are pretty accurate, pretty much.

It's good to know someone else knows how to find the source of the reporting, which is what I was going to suggest.

I'd also suggest one concerned about biases learn how to separate opinions from facts in reporting.

Funny story about how I found Reuters: Back in 2010 I got myself a Windows Phone 7 device, and it came with a month or two subscription of Reuters news. They would send me snippets of news articles with links through SMS, and the rest is history.

Yes.

/thread

Alanis Star wrote:

95X wrote:Long story, but I studied media in my lower-level college years. Bias in media has been around for centuries.

In short, everybody and everything has a bias. We all have our own perceptual filters that determine what we're looking for.

Bias isn't limited to one political party versus another, and there aren't exactly two answers to every question.

It's good to know someone else knows how to find the source of the reporting, which is what I was going to suggest.

I'd also suggest one concerned about biases learn how to separate opinions from facts in reporting.

Funny story about how I found Reuters: Back in 2010 I got myself a Windows Phone 7 device, and it came with a month or two subscription of Reuters news. They would send me snippets of news articles with links through SMS, and the rest is history.

I definitely like Reuters.

Diopolis wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:You: Bias is bad and common in mainstream media

Also you: Conservative Christian Media is good

I can smell hypocrisy from a mile away, Servie

Oh, there are also high quality liberal sources- The Atlantic is the example that comes most immediately to mind. That was simply irrelevant to my point.

In this charged times it doesn't take much to suspect anyone of supporting X issue to push agenda Y.

Diopolis wrote:

Alanis Star wrote:
Funny story about how I found Reuters: Back in 2010 I got myself a Windows Phone 7 device, and it came with a month or two subscription of Reuters news. They would send me snippets of news articles with links through SMS, and the rest is history.

I definitely like Reuters.

Everybody likes Reuters.

Without a doubt. CNN and MSNBC have a left-wing bias, and Fox News has a right-wing one. As far as I know, the only "neutral" sources are PBS, NPR, and C-SPAN. And the last one is just a mountain of boredom.

Amuaplye wrote:Without a doubt. CNN and MSNBC have a left-wing bias, and Fox News has a right-wing one. As far as I know, the only "neutral" sources are PBS, NPR, and C-SPAN. And the last one is just a mountain of boredom.

And I think we as a species actually want bias in our sources, because who wants drama? It's the reason C-SPAN is not at the top of the ratings.

PBS and NPR do have a left-wing tilt, though I'll chalk it up to the reporters rather than them as an institution, unlike CNN since Trump won announced his 2016 run and Fox.

Amuaplye wrote:Without a doubt. CNN and MSNBC have a left-wing bias, and Fox News has a right-wing one. As far as I know, the only "neutral" sources are PBS, NPR, and C-SPAN. And the last one is just a mountain of boredom.

NBC Nightly New is neutral as far as I know.

Aeritai wrote:

Amuaplye wrote:Without a doubt. CNN and MSNBC have a left-wing bias, and Fox News has a right-wing one. As far as I know, the only "neutral" sources are PBS, NPR, and C-SPAN. And the last one is just a mountain of boredom.

NBC Nightly New is neutral as far as I know.

I know that a lot of foreign news stuff (except for obvious examples like RT or KCTV) is also neutral too, iirc.

Generally, straight reporting of the news is unbiased and factual, that's how journalists write. However a good 80% of news in most media is simply regurgitated direct from AP or Reuters. That leaves a lot of space for what's selected and how it's framed.

Editors can be biased as they like.. meaning they select what is and what isn't put into the news, and often what isn't put in the news is the real bias and effective censorship. It's not that we can read bias in a story where the story doesn't even exist for us. And they can edit the headline, which is the major imprint on anyone's mind as to what that news is about. Add that to the rise of fluff in opinion articles all over the place as well as the rise of sports and celebrities taking up so much of the news and you're left with not much in real reporting.

And a lot of bias.

Another thing I note.. Youtube served me up some shark documentary about a a boat accident off South Africa. It was by Discovery. Before halfway through I was a bit 'really, this seems very odd', and so I started looking it up. It's a totally bogus show with fake footage, fake 'experts', even to the point of completely making up the boat and the accident itself.

I know Discovery's reputation isn't the most solid but I was surprised to find just a totally made up documentary as opposed to dramatising reality a little.

I mean.. nothing is the truth anymore, it's all just your point of view.

I lean more left, but The Economist is always a good read/listen (audiobook format too) , a bit to the right but all in all pretty unbiased.