Brexit

[Otern]

Of course they have their own biases. They fall foul of Ofcom fairly regularly. The difference is they are obliged by their charter to make every effort to give both sides of a story. I've just listened to a pro-Brexit essay from John Gray (highly recommended by Daralon) He was given 15 minutes to make his argument with no imput what so ever from the BBC despite them having a pro-remain bias. Can you imagine Fox giving Micheal Moore 15 mins to talk about gun control?
Fox refused to follow the guidelines followed by everyone else and flounced off in a big sulk for refusing a right of reply.
Others appear to be arguing this into a closing down of right wing media but the rules apply to both sides of the political spectrum. CNN would have to offer both sides an opportunity to speak too.

Still not good enough.

A story has more than two sides, and when they choose the "other" side, they, like any other media outlet are going to pick a certain viewpoint among many of the "others" that make their own side seem more reasonable, while trying to not go too far, and be perceived as biased by the general population.

I think journalism should be taught in all high schools, so people could actually see all the tricks the media play on us. There are some that are worse than others, sure, but they all are guilty of it, and it's extremely noticeable for anyone who's been studying journalism.

Looking at the media in Britain and the US from the outside, it's really pretty awful. BBC is just one of the least awful ones, so it doesn't look so bad in comparison to the other stuff you guys are served.

The media here is also turning more and more anglo saxon in their way of operating, so we're not really doing much better either.

I'd hate to say it, but if you want to be informed, reading the news is really not the way to go anymore. You'll get a better overview over the world by just talking with regular people on the subjects they're experts in.

[Montegriffo]

You're still ignoring the elephant in the room.
Fox refused to even put forward the opposing view.
Sure the BBC will direct and edit in favour of their biases but if you only listen to Fox you will only hear one side. If you only listen to the BBC you will at least have access to the opposing view.

[TheReal_ND]

Seems like you're latching on to one legitimate argument here when we know there is an entire host of reasons the UK will never ban CNN. Namely, CNN will never attack a U.K. government person or policy.

[Fife]

You're still ignoring the elephant in the room.
Fox refused to even put forward the opposing view.
Sure the BBC will direct and edit in favour of their biases but if you only listen to Fox you will only hear one side. If you only listen to the BBC you will at least have access to the opposing view.

*at least have access to the opposing view*

Mad respect to the "opposing" view.

[Montegriffo]

You're still ignoring the elephant in the room.
Fox refused to even put forward the opposing view.
Sure the BBC will direct and edit in favour of their biases but if you only listen to Fox you will only hear one side. If you only listen to the BBC you will at least have access to the opposing view.

*at least have access to the opposing view*

Mad respect to the "opposing" view.

Funny, I'd have thought a hunter like yourself would be able to see the elephant.
Enjoy your myopia :go team: :drunk:

[Otern]

You're still ignoring the elephant in the room.
Fox refused to even put forward the opposing view.
Sure the BBC will direct and edit in favour of their biases but if you only listen to Fox you will only hear one side. If you only listen to the BBC you will at least have access to the opposing view.

I'm not ignoring the elephant in the room here.

Fox is a really, really shitty news source. There we agree. They're extremely biased, and unbalanced.

BBC, while better in areas where they don't have an agenda, are also biased and unbalanced. Fox do have an agenda in more areas than BBC, but in the areas where BBC have an agenda, their reputation as a balanced source, actually makes them a worse news source than Fox in rare instances, since the general population is perfectly able to see through Fox' bullshit, but not as capable to see through BBC's bullshit.

Relying on one source on getting informed about the world is a pretty good way to stay ignorant. This goes for the people watching solely Fox, and solely BBC alike.

Opposing viewpoints are pretty much worthless if you can handpick a strawman equivalent of the opposing side. Every news agency does this. Pick some uneducated, unpopular, or unprepared opponent to combat some educated, popular, and prepared on your side, and then purely ask questions you know the man on your side will give the answers most relateable to the audience.

There's really no solution for this, we can't all be trained as journalists in source criticism and all that, especially when not even respectable journalists all over the political spectrum aren't really doing it either.

[Montegriffo]

So is your solution to allow free reign for the media to behave however it wants or is it OK to insist on some minimum standards?

[Otern]

So is your solution to allow free reign for the media to behave however it wants or is it OK to insist on some minimum standards?

It's ok to insist on minimum standards, but how are you going to implement those standards? Too much law, and we're having a freedom of speech problem.

A media code of ethics is decent, but it's still flawed, as the people working within the media is a special demographic with their own biases.

No easy solution. The people reading the news is the solution, but instilling basic journalistic education in the population is expensive, and there's other skills that we could prioritize that we would benefit from individually anyway.

A good start could be for the already respected news agencies to be more open to constructive criticism when they're being biased, and change accordingly. Maybe they could be more open to diversity in opinion and politics among their journalists, rather than the usual hiveminds they really are now. Also, maybe decentralize the newsroom, less power to the editor, more to the actual journalists, with external independent editors (of course this wouldn't work, as they've got to get them clicks).

I used to study journalism, and the whole newsroom structure is a huge limit to the quality of journalistic work. It's a self enforcing hivemind, just like any internet forum. But add in an editor that can put his/her weight on what truly is newsworthy, and therefore important to the public, also being influenced by the hivemind, and their own political biases.

[Montegriffo]

All good points.
What really grinds my gears though is the people who seem to live on a diet of purely Breitbart and Fox news are the most vocal in exposing the biases of the BBC.
I'm not going to argue that the Beeb is anywhere near perfect but condemning Ofcom's treatment of Fox news as some sort of government censorship of far right freedom of speech is just fake news.

None of these points is addressing arguments you have made but others have expressed that opinion.

[Montegriffo]

Seems like you're latching on to one legitimate argument here when we know there is an entire host of reasons the UK will never ban CNN. Namely, CNN will never attack a U.K. government person or policy.

You seem to forget that the UK is run by the Conservative party. I could find plenty more examples but these are from the last 24hrs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/07/asia/ ... index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/europ ... index.html