General
04 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat are your 'observations'? Do you have any objective measures of media bias?
I watched the first few minutes and will watch the rest later. All of what the BBC are reporting could be true, but here's the thing, I trust the bbc even less than I trust Trump. In my opinion, base on my own observations, BBC has become increasingly biased over the years. Funded entirely by the UK government via tax, how could it not be.
Now why wo ...[text shortened]... ndependent funded candidate.
I'm not a Trump supporter. But I'm even less of a BBC supporter.
It's 10 minutes, not 28, by the way. Also take note that it's approximately three-quarters funded by the license fee. The rest comes from the profits made by its BBC Worldwide operation, which allows advertising.
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonNo I don't, it's just a personal perspective. I haven't seen the BBC run a 10 min expose on Hillary, have you?
What are your 'observations'? Do you have any objective measures of media bias?
It's 10 minutes, not 28, by the way. Also take note that it's approximately three-quarters funded by the license fee. The rest comes from the profits made by its BBC Worldwide operation, which allows advertising.
06 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterDo you think she has dealt with the Mafia? News coverage doesn't have to go to ludicrous OCD lengths to be artificially symmetrical in order to be impartial.
No I don't, it's just a personal perspective. I haven't seen the the BBC run a 10 min expose on Hillary, have you?
06 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat are the 'observations' you've made that led to your opinion that the BBC is biased, apart from it's funding model which is the only thing you have mentioned? And in which direction do you think they are biased?
I've no idea, perhaps we will find out when someone does an exposive article on her.
06 Mar 16
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonWatching the news broadcasts over many years and across different governments of opposing political wings.
What are the 'observations' you've made that led to your opinion that the BBC is biased, apart from it's funding model which is the only thing you have mentioned? And in which direction do you think they are biased?
06 Mar 16
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonI listen to the BBC regularly as well as other news and information outlets. The whole of the broadcasting industry is governed by the interests of their listeners primarily, and where the money is.
What are the 'observations' you've made that led to your opinion that the BBC is biased, apart from it's funding model which is the only thing you have mentioned? And in which direction do you think they are biased?
Sure, there is the fact that "what's going on in the world" is being reported, at least what they want you to know, in the way they want you to know it, but it is only a fraction of the truth. And while they may report their observations they will never get at the heart of the causes much less the solutions.
Warning: The above is only my opinion and fraught with error and in no way should it be considered the definitive explanation. 😕
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonDoes it bother you that much? Would you feel better if I trawled back through my memory to give you a list? Perhaps you feel that the BBC is not now nor never has been biased by political assosiation?
So no specific observations? You can't justify your opinion?
I'm not suggesting this is conclusive, but have a look through here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Originally posted by divegeesterI think it's of the greatest importance to understand whether and how the media that informs us is biased. You said you trust the BBC even less than you trust Trump, which I find astonishing after my own ongoing personal attempts to investigate media bias. So, yes I would feel better if you gave me some meat to chew on. And say in which direction you think the Beeb is biased.
Does it bother you that much? Would you feel better if I trawled back through my memory to give you a list? Perhaps you feel that the BBC is not now nor never has been biased by political assosiation?
And yes, as things are I believe the BBC is easily the most impartial of the many I've looked at, though I'm sure you'll appreciate it's a massive task to determine systematic bias in news organisations, even those where bias is pretty obvious. I'm ready for you to prove me wrong, or at least provide food for thought.
Edit: I would also be interested to know (if you don't mind telling me) which news organisations you trust more than the BBC and/or more than Donald Trump, and why.
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonI'm not particularly trusting generally, and I don't, for the record, trust Trump. I just think he comes across as more honest in his "pitch". Probably because he's a bit of a lone wolf. I trusted Obama by the way, and more than I trust Trump. The Christian republicans here will understand this as they already think I'm the son of the devil!
I think it's of the greatest importance to understand whether and how the media that informs us is biased. You said you trust the BBC even less than you trust Trump, which I find astonishing after my own ongoing personal attempts to investigate media bias. So, yes I would feel better if you gave me some meat to chew on. And say in which direction you ...[text shortened]... me) which news organisations you trust more than the BBC and/or more than Donald Trump, and why.
I was probably being a bit harsh on the BBC when one considers the global media carnage. But I don't really "trust" the BBC any less than I trust ITV, it's just that the link you provided was to a BBC site.
I've often found the Beeb to focused on the "right" issues but don't always seem to get to the nub of certain things like the independent agencies do. For example, I've seen a fair bit of reporting on anti-Brexit, but not a corresponding amount of pro-Brexit. Maybe it's the way online works. It's just an impression. I'm sure the stats would say I was wrong but it is not just about stats, it's also how the articles are presented, where the links are positioned and what gets "bumped".
06 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterThanks, that's a really interesting and informative answer.
I've often found the Beeb to focused on the "right" issues but don't always seem to get to the nub of certain things like the independent agencies do. For example, I've seen a fair bit of reporting on anti-Brexit, but not a corresponding amount of pro-Brexit. Maybe it's the way online works. It's just an impression. I'm sure the stats would say I was wro ...[text shortened]... it's also how the articles are presented, where the links are positioned and what gets "bumped".
I've found the best way to get an idea of what the BBC is reporting is to use their mobile app. You can have 20 or so feeds each based on any subject you choose* (Top Stories and 'Your News' i.e. based on what their algorithm thinks you are interested in based on what you read) are always there. For many feeds, new stories aren't updated particularly quickly, so you can basically see all the stories they have put up on a particular subject if you log in reasonably regularly. What I've heard pointed out in discussions of bias is that they tend to get accused of bias from all sides of the political divide, very often regarding the same coverage. Given that it is impossible for all of these accusations to be true at once, I agree with others that this is a strong indicator of their impartiality (i.e. if everyone hates them, they must be doing something right).
I have at various times mostly read The Telegraph, The Guardian and Observer, the Times and The Sunday Times and the Economist, as well as watching all of the 24-hour rolling news channels for longish periods of time.
With the digital age, bias is ever more easy to expose. I am reading the Wikipedia article with interest, and hopefully will have time to read criticisms of other news providers. I find Private Eye one of the most useful sources for discovering bias, although it's foolish not to be alert to possible bias when reading that, too. It's also very easy for any of us to sort of become cocooned in the news that they like (maybe 'content' is a better word), due to new innovations like news aggregators as well as countless special interest publications and websites.
On Brexit, my perception has been of equal and impartial coverage of the leave campaigns and the campaigns to stay in. But I haven't made detailed records, so it is only a perception at the moment.
*The subject must be a generally recognised one that they have tagged (e.g. arts, technology, uk news, Islamic State crisis, and so on).
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwClearly, I am talking about the US, not the whole world. So for example, you are contending that these things are NOT true in the US, have I understood you correctly? [1] The economy is growing slowly, but growing. [2] Inflation is low. [3] Interest rates are low. [4] Illegal immigration rates are down. [5] Crime is generally down across the board. As a US resident and citizen, you are asserting that these indicators are untrue, is that right?
I mean everything on the list and the whole world too. The Truth is hard to find. It's somewhere on a very narrow way.
07 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFYes and no.
Clearly, I am talking about the US, not the whole world. So for example, you are contending that these things are NOT true in the US, have I understood you correctly? [1] The economy is growing slowly, but growing. [2] Inflation is low. [3] Interest rates are low. [4] Illegal immigration rates are down. [5] Crime is generally down across the board. As a US resident and citizen, you are asserting that these indicators are untrue, is that right?
What is reported is the spin. The "indicators" are artificial manipulations subject to the vagaries of the tide of unpredictable variables. What is up today will be down tomorrow.
It's a slow bleed. Imperceptible at close range, but from a birds eye view clearly headed for Armageddon.
Does that answer your question?