Does anyone else wonder what truly impartial news would look like?

[Inhaledfoodohno]

I know the BBC are meant to be impartial but they are clearly anything but these days. Aibu to wonder what a truly impartial news article on anything would look like?

No news is ever, or can ever, be truly 'impartial' - the BBC are honestly much better than most, but they are gathering news from a Western perspective, so everything is filtered through this lens, especially news and events outside the UK. What do you mean by 'these days' with the BBC? They are are certainly much more objective than the likes of GB News etc.

'Good' journalism is supposed to examine the issue from all sides, so that the consumer can make up their own mind. They are not supposed to decide what the 'truth' is or take sides - they report on the facts of the event at hand and gather different opinions.

It's impossible because even by including stories, they are excluding others. Ultimately they have to show the kind of stories their consumers are interested in seeing.

It would just contain facts, nit guesses or speculation. It would be about something that had actually happened and wouldn’t try to make it seem like some other thing or be going on and on about something that might happen but for which there was zero evidence.

True impartiality is impossible even conceptually. The news would be infinite as the act of choosing what to report will inherently contain bias so it would have to report every minute detail of everything!

Most right leaning people I know think bbc is left wing and most left leaning people think it’s right wing so I think it’s probably pretty balanced overall.

They really aren’t. Or, only because most are absolutely awful. They’ve been going on about Starmer’s entries on the gifts register for fucking ages now, but sat very little about Jenrick, for example.

Look who leads it.

@cardibach they're 'going on about it' because Keir Starmer is the prime minister. Jenrick isn't even the leader of the conservatives. Of course the BBC will focus on the PM over someone who isn't even in government anymore

And yet Starmer has done nothing wrong, and Jenrick, who is an MP and may become LOTO very possibly has. Murky finance.
Unbiased reporting wouldn’t bang on about non-stories for weeks on end.

@cardibach you're misunderstanding my point. I'm a Labour voter so I have nothing against Starmer. The news is always going to focus on the 'more important person/thing' and Starmer is PM. It would actually be more biased to spend loads of time looking into the murky finances of someone who doesn't have any political power at the moment.

And the most recent BBC online article about Starmer is actually about him tightening transparency rules - a policy issue. I actually agree with you - he hasn't done anything 'wrong' really, especially compared to the likes of Boris. But reporting what he did or didn't accept isn't bias, it's factual.

It’s bias when it’s all about him, important or not, when other MPs are actually under investigation for rule breaking. I get that he’s PM and so a more important figure. But there’s more to it.

@cardibach we'll have to agree to disagree then!

Wouldn't that just be Reuters?

Facts, figures.

That's exactly how I understand it aswell.

For example, the "news" in my house is:
Facts: Minou's black cat is on her lap and has been there for 3 minutes.

Where the News becomes impartial is when they bring in opinions and speculation:
Opinion/Speculation: Minou's cat is lying on her lap because its cold. Or it could be because the cat wants a cuddle.
The cat may also be behaving like a bugger because it knows Minou needs a wee wee and won't move now.

Thing is, all news media know just reporting facts is boring. Opinion and speculation is what gets viewers and sells papers.

What you seem to be asking for is news written by a machine. But that wouldn't work because the machine will have been programmed by a human.

When I watch or read"news" I also read the name of the reporter so I can discover their "leanings" for won't of a better word.

So i read something from Carol Cadwalerder I know where she's coming from. Same as John Crace, Katrina hides etc.
Just spend a bit of time looking at which publications they normally write for, and which way that publication leans.

I would, however, put a word in for The Byline Times. I read it and each one of their contributors seem to have a very independent point of view.

It’s the job of responsible journalism to give context for situations, news stories, events etc so that the audience is better informed - and that’s usually where the accusations of bias come in. In this example, the journalist wouldn’t just be guessing why the cat is lying on Minou’s lap to grab viewers - but to inform viewers who’ve never had a cat and don’t understand cats’ behaviours. Of course among the audience there’ll be people who hate cats and think Minou’s cat is being an aggressive twat, and that by explaining that the cat is cold the journalist is clearly favouring cats over dogs. And likewise, there’ll be people who adore cats and think the journalist is being unfair to the cat and blaming it for Minou’s discomfort….

And is the fact that the cat is on Minou's lap unusual? If it is a rare event it will be reported as news. If this is normal daily behaviour it won't be reported as news. So the reporting of it is inherently stating that this is unusual.
And I might want to know if Fred's cat is doing the same thing. And if so why is that not being reported also? etc etc

News cannot ever be impartial. When I first lived abroad and watched the news elsewhere I was quite shocked that everything was different. Naive I know - but it's a shock to see "news" and realise how different it is!

At its core, truly impartial news would aim to report facts without any slant, bias, or hidden agenda. Key features include:

1. Objective Reporting: The hallmark of impartial news would be an unwavering commitment to the facts. News stories would be grounded in verifiable evidence, offering clear distinctions between fact and opinion. Journalists would avoid speculative or emotive language that could skew audience perception.
2. Balanced Perspective: Impartial news would provide balanced coverage of all viewpoints on contentious issues. This would not mean granting false equivalency to fringe views or misinformation but ensuring that diverse, legitimate perspectives are adequately represented.
3. Contextualization: Providing context is crucial to prevent skewed interpretations. Impartial news would not merely present raw facts but would explain the wider context—historical, social, or economic—needed to understand the significance of an event or issue. This would include acknowledging the limitations of available evidence or the existence of differing interpretations.
4. Transparency: Transparency in sources, funding, and editorial processes is essential. An impartial news outlet would clearly disclose the origin of its information and the sources of its financial backing to build trust and avoid perceived conflicts of interest.