The U.S./E.U. Media werent Crazed Howler Monkeys

ninebucks

Banned
OK, name a media organisation that's less biased then.

All media is biased, the difference is whether is in any way rational, whether its conclusions are in any way related to reality.

Nothing that laughingly calls itself journalism in the United States reports on nothing that comes close to ressembling reality, it is a rolling cycle of fluff, misinformation, blatant lies, propaganda and other assorted bollocks.

I'm not saying Old World news sources are perfect, but they are at least some that are worthy of the word 'journalism'.
 
All media is biased, the difference is whether is in any way rational, whether its conclusions are in any way related to reality.

Nothing that laughingly calls itself journalism in the United States reports on nothing that comes close to ressembling reality, it is a rolling cycle of fluff, misinformation, blatant lies, propaganda and other assorted bollocks.

I'm not saying Old World news sources are perfect, but they are at least some that are worthy of the word 'journalism'.

Individuals in the BBC who have their own views of course, they are not robots, but the organisation as a whole takes unbiased reporting incredibly seriously. Of course that sets it up as an Aunt Sally every time people within drop below the required standard, but it is trying.

One thing that people forget is that the BBC is not required to be unbiased between the truth and lies. When BBC reports undercut the way governments and other organisations are trying to spin the news that is not bias on the BBC's part, quite the reverse.
 
No joke. WI the current Media was much more professional, non-partisan, and literary conservative. What if they spent more time on actual stories and not the flash in the pans ones so common today? How would politics be affected.

Then the newspapers would be boring and nobody would read them. Or they would be The Economist and a relatively small group would be dedicated readers.

Then someone would start a more interesting newspaper and people would read that.

It is notable that the self-consciously high-brow material sometimes produced in the US (and when such material is posted in PC it's length is often quite notable) is generally held in contempt by British journalists who call it "Very good ... ...for journalists, not readers."
 
This thread was as bad as I thought it would be. Everyone who participated to explain why their favorite media outlet (BBC, Fox, etc.) was good and all the others were bad should be ashamed.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Most of the ships in the Royal Navy refuse to have the BBC piped in. Having been in Kuwait for the last 9 months I listen to the BBC every day and it is totally left wing and biased whenever it has a subject that involves the US. They are having on Friday a full hour show saluting Castro.
 
I think that most media outlets are at least somewhat biased. As far as crazed howler monkeys, stopping programs like crossfire or personality driven programs would make the media appear much more civil. Like others have mentioned prevent the rise of 24 hour news and you should be well on your way.
 
The only place where you can good news that is factual is the Internet.

On television, it is all about ratings, and for newspapers, it is the number of copies sold, but on the Internet, there is no reason to stretch the truth.
 
Most of the ships in the Royal Navy refuse to have the BBC piped in. Having been in Kuwait for the last 9 months I listen to the BBC every day and it is totally left wing and biased whenever it has a subject that involves the US. They are having on Friday a full hour show saluting Castro.

Examples please where BBC programmes are actually biased and not just giving air time to the views of people who you don't personally agree with and/or looking under rocks you'd rather they didn't look under.

And I'll put the same question to you: name a major media outlet that is less biased than the BBC.

Finally, the show is 'about' Castro not 'saluting' him. Like it or not he is a major figure and a biographical piece as he nears the end of his life is not remotely unreasonable.
 
Examples please where BBC programmes are actually biased and not just giving air time to the views of people who you don't personally agree with and/or looking under rocks you'd rather they didn't look under.

And I'll put the same question to you: name a major media outlet that is less biased than the BBC.

Finally, the show is 'about' Castro not 'saluting' him. Like it or not he is a major figure and a biographical piece as he nears the end of his life is not remotely unreasonable.


Too easy.

Global 'warming'.
 
The BBC is way better than CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, and all the other big American stations that broadcast news.

I think you're both right. Yes, the BBC has a strong left-wing bias. But it's still better in some ways than our media, simply because it delivers more news. Reading foreign media online shocks you when you realize how many stories aren't covered by our own media.

'Zactly. What makes Fox and CNN biased is the inordinate amount of time dedicated to commentary and speculation. BBC (and, I might add, NPR) spend a lot more time delivering factual news, which by definition makes them less biased than, say, US Cable News.

There's been little mention of an actual POD and a lot more bickering over who's the most biased. What about my idea of a journalistic Hypocrates?
 
Although the BBC may have a small slant at least they report the news, not take a significant chunk of their program to talk about an 80 something year old grandma that teaches boxing (no joke, saw it on CBS).
 
Too easy.

Global 'warming'.

From the quotes on 'warming' I take it you are a Global Warming sceptic.

If that is the case then IMO the BBC coverage of Global Warming falls under the heading of "giving air time to the views of people who you don't personally agree with" not bias.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of the merits of Global Warming Science, however, I will say that IMO the BBC does not have a 'position' on Global Warming, it does give more weight (and hence air time) to the the overwhelming consensus of the international scientific community than to the relatively small sceptical minority. If there was no consensus the coverage would alter IMO.
 
From the quotes on 'warming' I take it you are a Global Warming sceptic.

If that is the case then IMO the BBC coverage of Global Warming falls under the heading of "giving air time to the views of people who you don't personally agree with" not bias.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of the merits of Global Warming Science, however, I will say that IMO the BBC does not have a 'position' on Global Warming, it does give more weight (and hence air time) to the the overwhelming consensus of the international scientific community than to the relatively small sceptical minority. If there was no consensus the coverage would alter IMO.

As you are so obviously a member of the AGW religion, you think the BBC's biased reporting, not giving any air time to any data or scientists who disagree with the religion, and deliberately misleading articles (for example a report on Arctic ice this autumn which didnt actually bother to mention the stats were from 2 years previously!) are ok.

The BBC's bias on this subject is deplorable, and just because most of the mainstream media has this same bias doesnt make it acceptable. The job of the media is to question, not blindly follow the herd and the money. Shame so many media people have forgotten this.

The most honest reporting on subjects I find on small internet outlets such as The Register. Main media outlets are pretty much propaganda nowadays, although a few newspaper columnists seem to have forgotten to read the script occasionally.

BTW, have fun shovelling all that global warming off your driveway this winter...:D
 
As you are so obviously a member of the AGW religion, you think the BBC's biased reporting, not giving any air time to any data or scientists who disagree with the religion, and deliberately misleading articles (for example a report on Arctic ice this autumn which didnt actually bother to mention the stats were from 2 years previously!) are ok.

The BBC's bias on this subject is deplorable, and just because most of the mainstream media has this same bias doesnt make it acceptable. The job of the media is to question, not blindly follow the herd and the money. Shame so many media people have forgotten this.

The most honest reporting on subjects I find on small internet outlets such as The Register. Main media outlets are pretty much propaganda nowadays, although a few newspaper columnists seem to have forgotten to read the script occasionally.

BTW, have fun shovelling all that global warming off your driveway this winter...:D

You have no idea what my views are on climate change so I suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

I certainly don't think using outdated stats is OK, although I don't imagine there is a great conspiracy there, more likely a mistake.

I question your assertion that the BBC gives no time to climate change sceptics, they will get less time in the same way BNP spokesmen get less time than Labour party spokesmen, because they represent a small minority. It may be wrong that climate change sceptics are a small minority, but the fact is that they are.

As I said I'm not getting into any discussions on the merits of Climate Change Science, this thread is off topic enough already. If you have a bee in your bonnet about Climate change then I suggest that you start a thread about it.

My point is that the BBC will report the scientific consensus that Global Warming exists, in the same way it reports the scientific consensus that smoking is bad for you. You don't like that. The oil companies don't like it. The US Government doesn't like it either. But that doesn't mean reporting it is bias, quite the reverse.

And, The Register? You can't be serious. I like The Register but it's a humorous tech site, that mostly just rehashes news feeds and sticks on some sarky comments. I wouldn't get my tech industry news from Greenpeace either.
 
Top