Unbiased reporting?

(52 Posts)
Madlizzy Thu 23-May-13 18:37:16

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 Thu 23-May-13 20:45:16

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

NicholasTeakozy Thu 23-May-13 21:17:30

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 Thu 23-May-13 22:03:57

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

ladymariner Thu 23-May-13 22:06:36

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 Fri 24-May-13 00:31:27

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 Fri 24-May-13 00:52:01

Russia today: rt.com/

Madlizzy Fri 24-May-13 11:36:47

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.

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 Fri 24-May-13 12:11:13

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 Fri 24-May-13 12:21:02

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 Fri 24-May-13 12:46:59

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 Fri 24-May-13 14:16:12

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 Fri 24-May-13 15:44:06

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 Fri 24-May-13 20:25:09

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

GoshAnneGorilla Sat 25-May-13 13:56:52

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 Sat 25-May-13 14:50:25

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

MiniTheMinx Sat 25-May-13 15:22:07

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 Sat 25-May-13 23:01:49
Solopower1 Sun 26-May-13 07:45:54

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 Sun 26-May-13 07:56:13

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 Sun 26-May-13 07:58:43

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 effectgrinh, so that's what the other side ofthe coin looks like, allowing me to draw my own conclusions.

Lazyjaney Sun 26-May-13 08:54:09

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

MiniTheMinx Sun 26-May-13 11:00:59

"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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTCPoodUsgU and this www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SK8bUsshQ 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 Tue 28-May-13 21:38:25

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 Tue 28-May-13 21:55:02

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.

NiceTabard Tue 28-May-13 21:55:45

Was it? I missed that, I only saw it on facebook after the attack on the soldier.

edam Tue 28-May-13 22:12:27

It happened before the attack on the soldier and was reported before the attack on the soldier.

edam Tue 28-May-13 22:15:48

See here and here and here.

It was widely reported - someone started the Facebook thing after the soldier's killing, presumably to try to deflect any anti-Islam attitudes.

I think the lesson is, don't believe anything you read on Facebook without checking.

NiceTabard Tue 28-May-13 22:29:15

Well,

I watch the news on the BBC & newsnight & channel 4 every day

And I definitely didn't recognise the story, while the soldier one was all over the news immediately.

It's to do with some kind of hierarchy in the press, and I think that is something i can't get the hang of, and what I think the op was getting at

NiceTabard Tue 28-May-13 22:32:21

I suppose my point is that facebook was the first I heard of that story, and I watch a reasonable amount of news for a standard person.

That bothers me. TBH. I know they have to pick and choose but so much seems so off at the mo even with the BBC and they are supposed to be unbiased.

claig Tue 28-May-13 22:55:52

'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.'

NiceTabard, according to those newspaper reports there is no evidence that it was a racist attack or that white men were involved as far as I can see. That is probably why it was not headline news. Had it been a racist attack for certain, then I think it would have received greater coverage.

NiceTabard Tue 28-May-13 23:29:43

The report I saw said a racial attack was a strong line of enquiry and they are looking for at least one white man late 20s/early 30s.

Unless you have another reason that you think a pensioner using a walking stick was stabbed to death on their way home from prayers? That the police haven't mentioned? Possible gang links, are you thinking? <rubs chin>

Not seeing it.

NiceTabard Tue 28-May-13 23:33:10

I hate the hierarchy of victims / attackers that the press use.

It is distorting and frankly just wrong.

But like I say they are there to sell, so they choose their stories accordingly.

Freedom of the press is a total misnomer, red herring, wrong thing isn't it? Press freedom means they write what their readers want to hear, they pick and choose what they cover accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less. The BBC is supposed to be different, but, hmm, not seeing it lately.

boxershorts Thu 30-May-13 14:42:36

Probably no such thing as unbiased reporting. Maybe |Private Eye who do it in jokes.

boxershorts Thu 30-May-13 14:45:52

suprised to hear the BBC bought there street murder story off the sun. And BBC/ITN can use each others stories by agreement. (Medi prog Radio 4 wed 4.30pm)

Moominsarehippos Thu 30-May-13 14:59:06

I heard about the elderly asian man beinm stabbed, just as I heard about the church organist being murdered at new year (or christmas). Senseless crimes are a daily occurrance sadly, crimes categorised as 'terrorism' are more rare (especially a man being hacked to death in broad daylight with the murderers bragging/encouraging people to film it).

Boomba Thu 30-May-13 22:25:46

Im glad i found this thread

Have been feeling really frustrated and cross about this recently

I started a thread today about the American soldier who attacked 2 villages and killed 16 people, mostly women and children. Horrific. 1 man lost his mum and 2 year old daughter. I just got a few biscuits and cross faces for wrongly saying the soldier was British

I really really think, a lot of people in the UK, dont value non-white British life. Not on the same level, at all

Interesting links mini thanks

Pan Thu 30-May-13 22:36:58

Second NT's Al-Jezeera comment. Even CNN have a different take.

Also try Fox News for some really weird idea what is actually going on.

To balance Fox, but in a worrying similar presentation, try the daily mash You will laugh your socks off, though in a different way to how you would do with Fox.

Pan Thu 30-May-13 22:43:50

and really, who still believes the murder last week deserves the blanket, swivel-eye'd, 'terrorist' reaction we have been subjected to?

Boomba Thu 30-May-13 22:48:22

Pan yes really. Im not sure I even really know what 'terror attack' is any more......

It was a murder. A hate crime. Same motivation as the Grandad stabbed on his way home from Masjid

Pan Thu 30-May-13 22:53:57

Yes, we've a massive increase in Hate Crimes against the Jewish community in recent years....

Lee Rigby's horrible death cues the control freaks to clamp down on other people's freedoms - hence re-igniting discussions about email and telephone recordings.
An old friend of mine asked last week IF she could talk about being of the opinion that it's all an opportunism for reactionary types. She is an intelligent, aware person but felt constrained in talking about this stuff with family and other friends.

GoshAnneGorilla Fri 31-May-13 04:07:02

Pan - if it's brown people doing a crime - it's terrorism.

If it's white people - it's murder.

Hence Marwa El Sherbini's murderer wasn't described as a terrorist and Anders Brehvik often isn't either.

NicholasTeakozy Fri 31-May-13 07:12:35

Boston suspect 'executed' by the FBI. According to various reports from my Facebook news feed this unarmed man was questioned for 8 hours then shot in cold blood. No British news broadcaster carried this despite their blanket coverage of the bombing and subsequent manhunt.

What GoshAnne says is right, white people commit murder not terrorist acts.

Nowadays I try to get news from several sources, including the swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists, so I can cross check and decide for myself.

Moominsarehippos Fri 31-May-13 09:09:03

I suppose terrorist acts are an act aimed at the state/government, or those where the person carrying out the attack makes statements/videos saying that they are.

Hate crime is an attack because of some mad hatred against a person for what/who they are.

Sadly there are too many conspiracy theorists out there. I am waiting for someone to say that the murder last week of the soldier was a british government set up, and the murderer was a british agent and it was all to stir up racist sentiment.

The murder last week was a hate crime, dressed by the murderer as a terror crime. He stated why he/they did it. In his garbled brain anyway.

And there have been/are plenty of 'white' terrorist groups. Ever heard of the IRA, Bader Meinhof, Army of God...

Boomba Fri 31-May-13 09:23:50

But, Britain entered an illegal war....doesn't that then make out army/government 'terrorists'?

ommmward Fri 31-May-13 09:25:48

lazyjaney - thank you. Great link!

Moominsarehippos Fri 31-May-13 09:37:30

Can an elected government be labelled terrorists though? I'm thinking Hammas, the Iranian regime...

I'm not smart enough to understand foreign policy - I studied history up to degree level (as part of my degree) and its a tangled web of alliances, nods/winks, and back door agreements.

Was Saddam a terrorist in Kuwait? Who were the terrorists in the Iran/Iraq war? Gadaffi - he wasnt exactly the peoples choice (did they bomb that airline?) Ayatollah Khomeni (not Iranian or Aryan)? American when is blew the Iranian passenger plane out of the sky?

The world's a bloody great big mess.

Boomba Fri 31-May-13 09:46:30

That's what I mean though moomin. It's an empty term really I think. As a word, it is really effective in evoking a gut response, without really thinking about the crimes, the criminals and the motives

Moominsarehippos Fri 31-May-13 09:58:22

Its a handy shorthand for 'everybody panic'.

Boomba Fri 31-May-13 10:02:14

Terrorism definition

the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims

Moominsarehippos Fri 31-May-13 10:04:52

Could refer to male treatment of females in some parts really.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now