Unbiased reporting?

[Mabelface]

Okay, newswise, where will I find the most unbiased reporting? Sick of the mainstream propaganda that we're being fed on a daily basis. Shocked that the BBC and ITV thought it was necessary to show yesterday's bloodbath on the main news.

[edam]

What do you mean, unbiased? What mainstream propaganda - does that mean you don't want news from Channel 4, BBC, ITV, Sky?

[NicholasTeakozy]

RT. If you have Freeview it's on Channel 85. You get stuff you'll never see on the BBC, like the riots in Bahrain and Sweden, and the truth about why the stock market is at an all time high.

There are a couple of shows on Aljazeera that are worth a watch too.

[frumpet]

Was the barbaric nature of what occured that upsets you or the fact that it was reported at all ?

[ladymariner]

Not sure what your point is, Op? The facts as I see it are that a soldier was viciously attacked and killed in the most horrific way and his killers were shot and are currently in hospital. Where is the bias?

[Not4turning]

It was better that they showed it. If not the headlines would have read 'black males shot by police', remember the last time? At least any would be rioters could clearly see why and perhaps resist rioting?

[TigerSwallowTail]

Russia today: rt.com/

[Mabelface]

It's the bias that I object to. Not just the horrific events of woolwich. Paedophile rings seem to be far more newsworthy when it's asian men than white men etc. I've not put this up for a debate, just asking for unbiased reporting. Thanks for the suggestions.

[AMumInScotland]

I'm not sure you'll ever find completely unbiased reporting - all news outlets make choices about what to report, which items to make a headline, which to barely mention. Maybe best to watch/read a variety of different sources and get an overall picture?

[edam]

I think the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV news try very hard to be unbiased, but necessarily reflect the values of the societies that they are part of. Sky tries to be unbiased but is a little more excitable, tends to rush information and speculation out while the BBC is still checking and I'm not sure is completely open about Mr Murdoch's travails.

[SarabiDog]

Try the i newspaper. It's more like news highlights, but it's very careful to only report facts, and makes it very clear when soemthing is an opinion piece.

My sister is a recovering journalist, and it's the only news source she'll touch.

[EldritchCleavage]

Russia Today is most certainly not unbiased. It just has a bias different from those of our main news outlets. Ditto Al-Jazeera etc.

[notcitrus]

Try The Economist. Stories from all over the world that don't get into other papers, with obvious bit of a focus on money, buyt it's a lot more interesting than you might expect.

[MiniTheMinx]

I follow Al-Jazeera and Russia Today but I also read: anything and everything online and I quite like the "i" it's factual reporting rather than opinion.

[NicholasTeakozy]

If you're after written word try The New Statesman and Private Eye.

[GoshAnneGorilla]

RT is definitely not unbiased, they completely follow the line of the Syrian regime with regards to that conflict, which makes me wonder what other biases they have.

Euronews is good for straight forward news reportage, although they are obviously pro-EU, which I find an interesting contrast to the UK press.

[ophelia275]

Ha ha. You seriously think Russia Today and Al Jazeera are unbiased? They are just as biased only in the opposite direction!

[MiniTheMinx]

ah, but I stated I read anything and everything. Of course you are going to get a bias if you only follow one source.

[Lazyjaney]

Why News is bad for you

[Solopower1]

There is no such thing as 'unbiased' reporting, imo. Journalists maintain they decide what to report based on society's preoccupations, but to the rest of us this sometimes looks like manipulating public opinion and/or jumping on bandwagons in order to sell newspapers.

The very most you can expect from journalists, imo, is that they at least get their 'facts' right. They often don't. I think this might be because they are rushing to meet deadlines.

But if you want more than just one point of view you have to do the work yourself and read/watch different sources. Then you need to weigh them up, read the comment columns, discuss the issues with other people (eg on Mumsnet) and come to your own conclusions, based on what you think is more likely and your knowledge of history and human nature. That's the closest you can get to the 'truth', I think.

Meanwhile, just take everything with a pinch of salt. Question everything.

[Solopower1]

With any set of statistics, you need to know who paid for the research, why they wanted the research done and how big the sample was, for a start.

The Scottish independence issue is a perfect example of why you can't believe statistics. Every time someone publishes some 'research' that says that we'd be better off independent, all you have to do is hold your breath, count to five, and along comes another load of 'facts' that say we'd be worse off.

[Dilidali]

The only old style journalism I found is on BBC Radio 4. It's been a long time since I listened to/read areally good piece of reporting. I found that BBC R4 would actually do their own investigations, rather than just spout back news agencies headliners.
RT and Al Jazeera, Euronews are good and report in what's called an inverted pyramid way( as opposed to the usual one-liner and a bit of detail afterwards), they are allowing me to do a good journalist's work in effect:oh, so that's what the other side ofthe coin looks like, allowing me to draw my own conclusions.

[Lazyjaney]

Read "Flat Earth News" to understand how it works, from who owns news companies to how PR is the news.

[MiniTheMinx]

"In a capitalist ?democracy? like the United States, the corporate news media faithfully reflect the dominant class ideology both in their reportage and commentary. At the same time, these media leave the impression that they are free and independent, capable of balanced coverage and objective commentary. How they achieve these seemingly contradictory but legitimating goals is a matter worthy of study"

Very interesting piece that explains how the media is used as propaganda to uphold the class interests of the wealthy.

www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

In the states, (as here) four mega corporations control all media, from TV news, newspapers to kids TV.

"Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s" wiki

What came out of this is that the CIA directly owned and controlled some 200 media companies across the globe. They released (mis)information to journos to distort reality and waged a war against any objections to corporate interests. Thus is the case now.

and this Inventing Reality.

Does anyone else read Truth Out? truth-out.org/news/item/15309 Interesting piece written by Chris Hedges about "The Day That TV News Died"

[NiceTabard]

I like C4 news and newsnight. Also enjoy the daily politics and that thing with portillo on a sofa.
Have heard good things about al jazeera.

On the topic of this story, there was a facebook thing about an elderly asian man who got viciously attacked in the UK by white men in a suspected racially motivated attack, before the murder of the soldier. Was that headline news? was it in the news at all? Nope. And so that sort of thing, happens a lot a lot. It's the press though, they have to sell copy, in the end. What can you do?

[edam]

yes it was in the news. Reported by mainstream newspapers, broadcasters and websites. Not as prominent as the attack on the soldier, but that's because it was a crime rather than a terrorist attack. Sadly racist attacks are not uncommon, while terrorism is thankfully rare.