[Loos3-tools]

Well said. Thanks!

[teestub]

If reporting is genuinely objective, accusations of bias gain no traction. For me the growing absence in the media of fair and accurate, factual reporting of events, to be replaced by comment-led news and activist/campaign journalism, is a real problem, and the BBC are far from immune from this trend.

Just above this you said that people find bias where there is none dependent on their own views. In this case who is fit to be the arbiter of what is fair and accurate, particularly when it comes to political issues? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[A Jooser]

All the Fox style partisan news channels are on their way over here, so anyone... will be able a find a news channel to tell them what they want to hear.

Direction of travel seems to be towards Fox News type polemical opinionated journalism which is popular I understand with younger generations...

May I invite all to compare and contrast the following...









Forget the content of the story, think presentation. We shouldn't have to ask ourselves 'do I agree with the news anchor'.

Are you being given facts or opinion? Are you being told what to think? Is this objective reporting or are we being given direct-to-camera polemic? Is our impartial national news broadcaster now aping US Fox-style partisan news channels?

I'm not all together sure, but I am concerned.

Interesting listening on The Media Show. BBC March 10th:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000synm

Hope the link works.

"..a time to question what public service broadcasting is, what impartiality means, how do we protect it, and whether we want to."

The crux!

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Some great posts.

I felt really uncomfortable when the World Service was withdrawn from regions where it was claimed to be economically untenable.

I'd suggest that what concerns us most, is the balance between a (hard to guard against) self-serving bias within the BBC, and accountability. Precisely because of it's funding model, the BBC is protected from some of the challenges facing commercial news channels. However, any claim to be "not in the market" is in my view, false.

I'm inclined to think of the relationship between children and parents. If you've grown up with siblings, you'll probably be very familiar with the feeling of M/D seeming to take sides with your brother/sister. The feeling of being "left out", possibly abandoned even.

A lot of arguments around "representation", I'd suggest, are about wanting to feel included, the perceived threat of not being, etc.

A big part of all of this, is the role of " news" in democracy.

Sorry, that's all a bit clumsy!

[Oldmanmatt]

All the Fox style partisan news channels are on their way over here, so anyone... will be able a find a news channel to tell them what they want to hear.

Direction of travel seems to be towards Fox News type polemical opinionated journalism which is popular I understand with younger generations...

May I invite all to compare and contrast the following...









Forget the content of the story, think presentation. We shouldn't have to ask ourselves 'do I agree with the news anchor'.

Are you being given facts or opinion? Are you being told what to think? Is this objective reporting or are we being given direct-to-camera polemic? Is our impartial national news broadcaster now aping US Fox-style partisan news channels?

I'm not all together sure, but I am concerned.

Interesting listening on The Media Show. BBC March 10th:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000synm

Hope the link works.

"..a time to question what public service broadcasting is, what impartiality means, how do we protect it, and whether we want to."

The crux!

Well, I did.

Then I fact checked the BBC report.

I couldn’t find anything that was incorrect. In fact, much of the criticism raised by the “Anchor” actually only reflected  the criticism pointed to amongst European leaders, has further been largely acknowledged and admitted by the Commission itself and reversed, in the weeks since the debacle began.
There was, certainly, a critical to mildly mocking tone from the presenter, but (and this is important and true in all of your examples) this wasn’t a “Newsreader” presenting news, this was taken from a political commentary program/segment. Perhaps you are suggesting that a national broadcaster should not provide “commentary”, but as commentary, I found it to be critical, but reasonable, with little hyperbole. Missing? An argued defence of the Commission’s position and actions (though if memory serves, they themselves never did provide such and some change in Commissioners is probable, so...).

If I look at the other extreme, and stick to one for simplicity; then Mr Carlson was full of hyperbole and straw men, right from the opening sentence. Bright/gaudy graphics, raised voice, physically animated and the ever present “Mueller Derangement Syndrome” banner at his shoulder (I note a lack of “Vaccine/Border Derangement Syndrome” in the BBC clip). Carlson frequently quoted other journalists and commentators, in preference to officials and leaders, whereas the BBC commentator provided, fairly lengthy, clips of the leaders and officials at the heart of the story, speaking in their own words or making prepared speeches.

I think this was a pretty good advert for the BBC, to be honest.

[A Jooser]

...you said that people find bias where there is none dependent on their own views. In this case who is fit to be the arbiter of what is fair and accurate, particularly when it comes to political issues? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not exactly what I said, teestub, and you may be missing the points I made in two separate statements. I'm not sure I can answer your questions, but I'll give it a try...

Perhaps an individual reader/listener/viewer is the ultimate arbiter of what is fair (and to some extent accurate*), their judgement may often be coloured by their own biases or preconceptions; this is something that cannot be avoided. An objective journalist must endeavour to establish the facts of a story and give a fair and accurate presentation of those facts, uncoloured by their own biases and preconceptions.

Politics is often not about facts, but opinions. News journalists should certainly not be - and should not be expected to be - the arbiter of opinion.

Once things move away from the facts and into the realm of opinion, it is very hard to remain impartial. This is why the decline of reportage and the rise of comment is a problem for me. If a reader/listener/viewer has a preconceived idea of what the political leanings or views of any given reporter, or media organisation, are, then their reaction to any given story may be influenced as much by this as by the substance of the story.

So teestub, you tell me, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who do you think is fit to be the arbiter of what's fair and accurate? Do you think an impartial national broadcaster should be an arbiter of opinion?

(* Rulings on what is fair and accurate are available from IPSO, Impress and OFCOM in matters of press standards, and from courts in matters of slander/libel, privacy etc.)

[abarro81]

Individuals with differing opinions can't all be the ultimate arbiter, by definition, surely.

P.s. it's probably easier for anyone to justifiably claim to be the arbiter of public opinion than of "fairness" since it's far more measurable. The former is at least theoretically possibly in a valid way (instant universal polling) while the latter is inherently impossible

[Oldmanmatt]

...you said that people find bias where there is none dependent on their own views. In this case who is fit to be the arbiter of what is fair and accurate, particularly when it comes to political issues? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not exactly what I said, teestub, and you may be missing the points I made in two separate statements. I'm not sure I can answer your questions, but I'll give it a try...

Perhaps an individual reader/listener/viewer is the ultimate arbiter of what is fair (and to some extent accurate*), their judgement may often be coloured by their own biases or preconceptions; this is something that cannot be avoided. An objective journalist must endeavour to establish the facts of a story and give a fair and accurate presentation of those facts, uncoloured by their own biases and preconceptions.

Politics is often not about facts, but opinions. News journalists should certainly not be - and should not be expected to be - the arbiter of opinion.

Once things move away from the facts and into the realm of opinion, it is very hard to remain impartial. This is why the decline of reportage and the rise of comment is a problem for me. If a reader/listener/viewer has a preconceived idea of what the political leanings or views of any given reporter, or media organisation, are, then their reaction to any given story may be influenced as much by this as by the substance of the story.

So teestub, you tell me, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who do you think is fit to be the arbiter of what's fair and accurate? Do you think an impartial national broadcaster should be an arbiter of opinion?

(* Rulings on what is fair and accurate are available from IPSO, Impress and OFCOM in matters of press standards, and from courts in matters of slander/libel, privacy etc.)

I think this is the wrong way to view this.

Commentary is very different from “News”. The audience for “Commentary” will either consist of those with an already ingrained opinion, seeking confirmation (who would probably find it, regardless of the content of the commentary) or those casting around for greater detail and accessing multiple sources of various cants (probably critical thinking, in that case).

Presentation of the “News” is a different matter. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that the majority of the public, form their basic attitudes and opinions, based on little more than the headlines. They will either not care at all or colour in their own mental illustrations, with their own prior experiences and notions, under little more than the suggestion given by the headline. If you throw a headline at a class, and have them write a thousand words on that line, to give it the context they imagine, you’ll get as many different essays as students and probably very little overlap.

News commentary is niche. Newsrounds, newspaper headlines (glimpsed whilst buying fags or booze at the corner shop) and two minute radio roundups change public opinion. Not Sunday morning talkfests.

[abarro81]

News commentary is niche.

I may be putting words in his mouth, but I think Jooser's concern is that this is less and less true, and commentary increasingly bleeds into the "news". Which I think is probably true, but that's just my opinion based on commentary and not on any facts.

[A Jooser]

...Newsrounds, newspaper headlines (glimpsed whilst buying fags or booze at the corner shop) and two minute radio roundups change public opinion. Not Sunday morning talkfests.

...and if so, in this day and age, one must ask: what do 20 second clips from those Sunday morning talkfest, or from BBC comment pieces, taken out of context and going viral on social media do?

[Loos3-tools]

This was Robin Aitken’s point unless I’m more confused than normal. The bbc news moved from impartial factual reporting to commentary driven by a particular group / section of society. (Who by chance happened to be well educated and liberal and likely enjoy the Guardian with their 'artisan aero pressed'* coffee and poached egg on a Saturday morning)

[Oldmanmatt]

...Newsrounds, newspaper headlines (glimpsed whilst buying fags or booze at the corner shop) and two minute radio roundups change public opinion. Not Sunday morning talkfests.

...and if so, in this day and age, one must ask: what do 20 second clips from those Sunday morning talkfest, or from BBC comment pieces, taken out of context and going viral on social media do?

Oh absolutely. However, that’s not the BBC per se.

So we move the debate from “is the BBC biased” to “Should BBC journalists and presenters be allowed to use social media to promulgate their own opinions”?
A much trickier conundrum.

Of course, taking clips and sharing them out of context isn’t exactly restricted to BBC journalists (hypothetically accepting that such might happen), is it?

Alternatively, you could see it that the relative effect of such things has largely taken the place of the Newspaper headline and perhaps is no more influential than those headlines once were.

I wouldn’t imagine, the people following those sorts of accounts, fall outside of the two brackets I already posited. Do they?

[Oldmanmatt]

This was Robin Aitken’s point unless I’m more confused than normal. The bbc news moved from impartial factual reporting to commentary driven by a particular group / section of society. (Who by chance happened to be well educated and liberal and likely enjoy the Guardian with their 'artisan aero pressed'* coffee and poached egg on a Saturday morning)

I could point you at commentary from three or four decades ago, that would suggest this isn’t “new”. Plus your characterisation of your straw man audience undermines your point further.

[Fultonius]

Also it is independently regulated not to be biased. How many countries have that?

My 2 cents:

The BBC published loads of "balanced" news on the website. If you happened to do a search, you can often find as many articles critical of a point as for. I'm not saying that this is a deliberate attempt to deflect accusations of bias, but it certainly helps.

The news headlines (BBC 6 news, BBC Scotland etc., BBC R4 headlines, Breakfast etc.) regularly do what I mentioned previously - uncritically allow the government to reply. This is my main complaint - and I would much rather seen it reformed than binned!

Howwever...independent oversight only works when it's well, truly independent...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/johnson-poised-to-appoint-paul-dacre-chair-of-ofcom

If you start to fill all the posts with chums from the same group, how independent can it be?

[Loos3-tools]

This was Robin Aitken’s point unless I’m more confused than normal. The bbc news moved from impartial factual reporting to commentary driven by a particular group / section of society. (Who by chance happened to be well educated and liberal and likely enjoy the Guardian with their 'artisan aero pressed'* coffee and poached egg on a Saturday morning)

I could point you at commentary from three or four decades ago, that would suggest this isn’t “new”. Plus your characterisation of your straw man audience undermines your point further.

Not more straw!

[Loos3-tools]

A summing up in response to Will (sorry about the delay) I can provide much anecdotal evidence of the cost - benefits of the policy and hopefully will have the opportunity to do so in person at some point. I can't put it better than this chap although could probably provide a deeper insight into the misery.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/03/06/believing-in-impossible-things-and-covid19/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Will Hunt]

I kind of hoped you might answer the questions directly. They shouldn't need more than yes or no, I don't think.

[seankenny]

The bbc news moved from impartial factual reporting to commentary driven by a particular group / section of society.

Worth running that idea past, say, women, people who aren't white, Ulster Catholics, etc. And there's a difference between what ran on the World Service, and the kinds of programmes that were shown on the mainstream BBC. The BBC has always been a mixed bag, which I suspect reflects the very varied and mixed up country it's trying to serve.

Quite telling that one poster on here complains about the BBC being "pure propaganda" but then casually and thoughtlessly repeats lies that emanate from Russia, home of unbiased news reporting par excellence. I suspect the problem is that our independent thinker, as with others of his tribe, doesn't understand how ideas and knowledge are produced, and simply doesn't trust any institutions that don't reflect his prejudices right back at him.

[Loos3-tools]

I’ve no doubt at this point in life that a great many of my problems lay with me. Projected, introjected* or otherwise.

Which ones require yes / no Will? Also let me know* if you fancy a boulder soon can chat shit or chat this. Don’t mind. I’ve got a back log of stuff to print out for you and a few others anyway.

[Loos3-tools]

This poem based on a film of the same name, read by my stoic hero spaceman spiff sums up what ye said

[Oldmanmatt]

A summing up in response to Will (sorry about the delay) I can provide much anecdotal evidence of the cost - benefits of the policy and hopefully will have the opportunity to do so in person at some point. I can't put it better than this chap although could probably provide a deeper insight into the misery.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/03/06/believing-in-impossible-things-and-covid19/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

1: This isn’t the Covid thread.
2: Two minutes on Google shoots down the “death” arguments (death rates in Sweden really aren’t something to compare with our death rates here), even before we consider the number of deaths in 2021. Please note some of the other results on this page.


3: A quick look deeper into “all deaths” over that last few years, clearly shows the spikes in 2020/2021. The spikes in all cause deaths, match almost perfectly with predictions and (more importantly) the introduction and easing of lockdown mandates. They also provide prima facie case for mask effectiveness (difficult to pull out more than a correlation from that, but there are several links to the studies the prompted the WHO and other world governments, to change their stance on masks, in the Covid thread, if you care to look). So, that certainly undermines the claims about Covid not killing people (more importantly, a large excess of people died, it actually isn’t important if that was due to Covid or some new mutant Flu, or any other nasty bug).
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

It is also abundantly clear, more people got sick and died (allowing for the 2-3 weeks between hospitalisation and death) when lockdown measure were eased and those rates fell, as predicted, from the moment lockdown measures were introduced. First Hospitalisation, then Death with the expected lag.

Any contention that “Lockdown was worse than the disease” is utterly debunked by the all death figures, because we know the excess people who died, got sick outside of lockdown periods and died of respiratory disease!

So, then we get to the “Everybody who had a positive test got counted as a Covid death” stuff.

Ffs. The vast majority of deaths occurred hospitals, of patients admitted with acute respiratory disease, who expired on ventilators, having never recovered. If (if) some people were added into the overall statistics for simply dying “with” Covid instead of ‘of” Covid, then it was a tiny minority OR, 2020 and 2021, remarkably and incredibly happened to have massive excess death rates, in almost every country on earth, that seem to freakishly coincide with surges of detected Covid infection in those countries.

Then, Vaccines. Wow, it’s almost as if Coronaviruses have been an issue for many years and vaccines had been under development for at least a decade for similar strains and rather than an all new vaccine appearing out of the blue, all that prior research turned out to be really useful in (more or less) adapting several already developed vaccines to combat a new strain...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1

So, perhaps a Mod could cut this exchange out and stick it in the Covid thread?

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, I meant to mention in the Euromomo link, if you scroll down there is an animated map of Europe. Runs from 2015 (iirc).
It’s incredible to watch the Flu seasons hit and you can see SARs and Swine Flu etc. It also pushes home the difference of 20/21.
Again:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Oh yeah.

Herd immunity.
It’s been done comprehensively on the Covid thread, so an example, instead.

Small Pox.
Humanity never managed to achieve herd immunity to that little bugger. Despite plenty trying (and dying, or being horribly disfigured etc).
Then along came the vaccine.
We achieved herd immunity.
Despite a massive rise in population at the same time.
Even in countries and communities that saw no significant increase in other hygiene methods at the time.
Etc
Etc
Etc

[Loos3-tools]

The bbc news moved from impartial factual reporting to commentary driven by a particular group / section of society.

Worth running that idea past, say, women, people who aren't white, Ulster Catholics, etc. And there's a difference between what ran on the World Service, and the kinds of programmes that were shown on the mainstream BBC. The BBC has always been a mixed bag, which I suspect reflects the very varied and mixed up country it's trying to serve.

Quite telling that one poster on here complains about the BBC being "pure propaganda" but then casually and thoughtlessly repeats lies that emanate from Russia, home of unbiased news reporting par excellence. I suspect the problem is that our independent thinker, as with others of his tribe, doesn't understand how ideas and knowledge are produced, and simply doesn't trust any institutions that don't reflect his prejudices right back at him.

Was it the Pilger link that got your goat?

Funnily enough I’ve just started watching JFK on iPlayer. Looking forward to hearing about the military industrial complex and the CIA’s possible role in what happened. Good old JP put me onto it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1367827195436036097

[battery]

A summing up in response to Will (sorry about the delay) I can provide much anecdotal evidence of the cost - benefits of the policy and hopefully will have the opportunity to do so in person at some point. I can't put it better than this chap although could probably provide a deeper insight into the misery.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/03/06/believing-in-impossible-things-and-covid19/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Have you read this and looked at the reports used in it as evidence?

There is no evidence that there isn't a giant teapot floating out in space, doesn't mean there is one!

[Loos3-tools]

I’m afraid I can’t comment due to strict gulag thread policy