How biased is the media really?

[Nooooooooooooooo]

Here's a better question: How based is the media?

[All China]

BBC is still sensationalist, but far better than CNN.

BBC is CNN with a face lift.

Even the sound effects are better!

[Galloism]

i don't think the weather channel is too biased

Their weatherism against extreme weather events and in favor of average weather events is well documented.

[Sengoku Americas]

BBC is still sensationalist, but far better than CNN.

BBC is CNN with a face lift.

Even the sound effects are better!

There's a massive difference in their coverage. If I had to choose I'd far prefer BBC, but even then I don't trust BBC by itself given their history of poor coverage of Russian and Chinese related issues among others.

[Forsher]

Again. CNN hasn’t had issues on the fact check side. Fox has a few times.

The Big Three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have issues with reporting and presentation.

If I admit anything, I will say the local affiliates have a better time. NBC is better than MSNBC. Local Fox networks do better than Fox News. CNN in different countries is better than the CNN.

Look as much as

It is up to you to disseminate the reports and decide whether this is the full representation of the facts, or some context is missing. In the end, though, calling a news article which you disagreed with "biased" is a lazy deflection. Since news is made by humans, and humans are biased, all news is biased anyway. Either refute the evidence presented, or provide missing context, or go.

is just one massive eye roll (for one reason why, see the second paragraph I haven't quoted), if you're interested if factual veracity it is, indeed, the way to proceed.

As Picairn is basically saying, looking to one source for a "factual" presentation, is, um, insane. There are always alternative facts. And I do mean actual, demonstrable facts. Of course, the problem is that you actually have to do a bit of work to find them and sometimes that can be rather a lot (e.g. a lot of people in the thread are going on about AP, and Picairn also mentions Reuters, but in a lot of cases AP or Reuters are the actual source that several news sites all share).

Alternative facts aren't just about thinkpieces and opinions but the basic state of the news. For example, if you were to prepare a new report on a scandal involving the Minister of Transport using a cellphone against regulations on an aeroplane, you could choose to contextualise this reporting with other scandals involving the same person. Or you could choose not to. Relative to the cellphone scandal, "this is the same guy that received data on house buyers in a deeply unethical fashion, had them analysed to estimate ethnicity of the house buyers and then decided everyone with a Chinese sounding name was a foreigner" is an alternative fact. And for all of you who read thinkpieces about Jacinda Ardern, she protected this racist and incompetent piece of shit for years... he's been demoted now, but he's still a minister (just outside of cabinet) rather than a backbencher. Somehow I suspect Ardern's steadfast support for Twyford (and her continuation of the anti-immigrant campaign Labour ran in 2017) is a fact that is excluded from articles like this one from... CNN.

(Note: you would probably call that CNN article an editorial. I reject the validity of the distinction.)

Of course, sometimes the news is just wrong. I had an example of this but I'm really beginning to question my memory. If you really want to know... click the spoiler.

Basically, someone I went to school with (we'll call him Jordan) had a very serious (national news serious) accident at work, while we were still at school. As I remember things, he was back at school the following year and I talked about the incident with someone I knew better and who knew him better who we'll call Andy. The problem is that it's still trivially easy to find articles about the accident (of course, it helps I know his name) and one of them said he was kicked out of school... which is weird if he was back the next year... and now that I think about it, Andy technically dropped out. I guess (a) maybe Andy left after getting Level One rather than Level Two or (b) it was Lance I was talking about it with, and (c) our school invited him back after the accident or (d) the article got that detail wrong. But anyway... if my memory is correct, it took the news organisations a fair amount of time to start getting basic details about Jordan correct.

(There's a fifth possibility... I'm confusing the factual errors in reporting of this incident with factual errors relating to a different classmate's father's murder, which I don't explicitly remember happening. Wait... a sixth possibility... maybe it was when a third classmate's older sister was killed by a car?)

Of course, as I somewhat alluded to in my earlier post in this thread, journalism in NZ is less biased and more incompetent (also: it literally steals "news" from the main New Zealand subreddit... it's a whole meme, but the basic phenomenon really does happen). Back before TVNZ made their website horizontal (and thus so shit to use I abandoned it), their articles were littered with spell checkable typos.

Look, I'm sure there are really obvious examples of the news media getting things very wrong... Simon Dallow apparently once explained how Australia's voting system worked entirely incorrectly... but I don't remember them and aren't overly interested in finding them. It'd give the rather misleading impression that the news is often wrong. For example... this fails a rather important reality check: functional silos mean that the same editorial oversight is not shared between departments, even if, by some miracle, the journalist is the same.

[Drew Durrnil]

i don't think the weather channel is too biased

Their weatherism against extreme weather events and in favor of average weather events is well documented.

at least its something that everyone can agree on

[Forsher]

Their weatherism against extreme weather events and in favor of average weather events is well documented.

at least its something that everyone can agree on

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

[Cekovia]

Here's a better question: How based is the media?

not. at all

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

They are all biased, the important question is are they deliberately and routinely telling lies.

[Cekovia]

They are all biased, the important question is are they deliberately and routinely telling lies.

all media is.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

BBC is still sensationalist, but far better than CNN.

BBC is CNN with a face lift.

Even the sound effects are better!

The BBC has a very high position in Britain,its income comes from the BBC tax---TV Licence.It is essentially between government agencies and state-owned enterprises, and even has some functions of intelligence collection and law enforcement.If it suspects who didn't pay taxes, it can secretly invade the house to investigate and throw people who didn't pay taxes and were watching BBC shows in secret into prison.Even more,in the last century, job seekers who wanted to enter the BBC needed the approval of MI5.If CNN could collect taxes from Americans...lol