Caporegime
It seems 4 in 5 of you don't. why?
Do you trust the mainstream media?
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Caporegime
Translation: 'I'm leaving the UK because the Caribbean is a convenient tax haven.'
You don't need to live there to enjoy its low taxes.
Tell me, do you trust the mainstream media?
Commissario
Define "Mainstream media".
Do I trust the Sun/Express/Daily Mail - barely, there is usually some element of truth buried deep beneath layers of effluent and opinion, but you need to be pretty good at working out what is opinion and hyperbole to get to it. Always check with other sources.
Do I trust the Guardian/Telegraph - Yes to a much higher degree, they're usually at least trying to be factual and do a far better job of checking things are correct for the most part (if not running a spellcheck in the Grunard), but I bare in mind that they have strong political opinions/slants.
Do I trust Sky/BBC - yes to a fairly high degree, both are required by law and regulation to be factual and at least try and give both sides of most viewpoints as part of their broadcast licence - I tend to trust the BBC a bit more than Sky mainly because the BBC tends to be a little more careful in fact checking and in less of a rush to break news..
Do I trust RT - about the same level as the Sun, their editorial policy is direct from the Kremlin which means for anything with a political bent they're on dodyg as heck ground.
Do I trus t Al'Jazeera - to a reasonable degree, again baring in mind possible leanings towards certain viewpoints.
Do I trust Fox - not at all, they're the Sun of the broadcast news (sorry Entertainment, must remember they argued that in the US, they're Entertainment, not news).
Ideally you should get your news from at least two different sources, preferably ones that have a history of reliability.
In short it varies, but I don't automatically discount "MSM" or assume that alternative sources are more accurate, non MSM news sources can be accurate, but they are highly varied from Alex Jones up, and often require a lot of fact checking.
Do I trust the Sun/Express/Daily Mail - barely, there is usually some element of truth buried deep beneath layers of effluent and opinion, but you need to be pretty good at working out what is opinion and hyperbole to get to it. Always check with other sources.
Do I trust the Guardian/Telegraph - Yes to a much higher degree, they're usually at least trying to be factual and do a far better job of checking things are correct for the most part (if not running a spellcheck in the Grunard), but I bare in mind that they have strong political opinions/slants.
Do I trust Sky/BBC - yes to a fairly high degree, both are required by law and regulation to be factual and at least try and give both sides of most viewpoints as part of their broadcast licence - I tend to trust the BBC a bit more than Sky mainly because the BBC tends to be a little more careful in fact checking and in less of a rush to break news..
Do I trust RT - about the same level as the Sun, their editorial policy is direct from the Kremlin which means for anything with a political bent they're on dodyg as heck ground.
Do I trus t Al'Jazeera - to a reasonable degree, again baring in mind possible leanings towards certain viewpoints.
Do I trust Fox - not at all, they're the Sun of the broadcast news (sorry Entertainment, must remember they argued that in the US, they're Entertainment, not news).
Ideally you should get your news from at least two different sources, preferably ones that have a history of reliability.
In short it varies, but I don't automatically discount "MSM" or assume that alternative sources are more accurate, non MSM news sources can be accurate, but they are highly varied from Alex Jones up, and often require a lot of fact checking.
I'd say no. Nearly all news is either tainted by a journalist's personal beliefs in some way or it edited and mandated by the Editor or Owners beliefs and direction. Take the Daily mail for example. Constant, never ending incitement that refugees will bring about the downfall of Society in the UK, winding up anyone that reads it, and lo and behold, Leave won. Which is exactly what the owners and editor wanted to happen.
IMO there isn't a truly impartial news source at the moment and there's unlikely to ever be one.
IMO there isn't a truly impartial news source at the moment and there's unlikely to ever be one.
Commissario
However a good journalist working for a good news provider will attempt to put their personal views to one side.
In the UK all broadcasters of news are meant to be impartial, and most do their best to be so.
Newspapers have no such requirement unfortunately:/ but most will try and be at least reasonably factual when it's not political.
This is unlike "alternative" news sources (which some people seem to think is much more reliable than MSM), where there is usually no checks or requirements to be impartial.
Associate
Having been expat for a number of years most of my UK friends think my perspective of the news, politics etc. as portrayed by the UK (and other countries) mainstream media is 'warped'. I prefer to think of it as more 'balanced', than perhaps their views.
For me it is not a matter of trusting the mainstream media, but rather realising that the UK press, (as will all national media globally), present a particular social, political and national perspective, which suits the climate and perspective of the readers and national identity and opinion. It does not necessarily represent a broader global reality, or a balanced review. This doesn't mean it is wrong however, just unbalanced, depending on where you see it from. Many things I believed when I grew up in the UK about 'The west', democracy, communism, other nationalities, beliefs, religions and UK perspectives I can now see as being, perhaps propaganda and false in reality. The opinions formed and therefore news perspective presented by mainstream media are based on selected facts and evidence. It doesn't mean the mainstream media is untrustworthy, just that they present a particular bias and do not perhaps fully represent global realities.
I don't plan to live in the UK again, partly because of this. Escaping the UK I have come to realise there are other places which offer a better quality of life, and even a greater personal freedom (places the UK mainstream media would portray as not doing so).
The UK mainstream media is considered broadly vitriolic outside of the UK, and many outside the UK struggle to understand why the UK mainstream media, a. has so much power over national opinion and b. seems to hate their country and core values so much. From an external perspective, there seems to be a UK mainstream media backlash against the fundamental core UK values which resulted in many nations previously holding the UK in such high regard.
The UK Mainstream media is not, perhaps untrustworthy, but is certainly not balanced or serving the national interests at this time.
John Cleese has an opportunity to go and live somewhere better. Good luck to him.
For me it is not a matter of trusting the mainstream media, but rather realising that the UK press, (as will all national media globally), present a particular social, political and national perspective, which suits the climate and perspective of the readers and national identity and opinion. It does not necessarily represent a broader global reality, or a balanced review. This doesn't mean it is wrong however, just unbalanced, depending on where you see it from. Many things I believed when I grew up in the UK about 'The west', democracy, communism, other nationalities, beliefs, religions and UK perspectives I can now see as being, perhaps propaganda and false in reality. The opinions formed and therefore news perspective presented by mainstream media are based on selected facts and evidence. It doesn't mean the mainstream media is untrustworthy, just that they present a particular bias and do not perhaps fully represent global realities.
I don't plan to live in the UK again, partly because of this. Escaping the UK I have come to realise there are other places which offer a better quality of life, and even a greater personal freedom (places the UK mainstream media would portray as not doing so).
The UK mainstream media is considered broadly vitriolic outside of the UK, and many outside the UK struggle to understand why the UK mainstream media, a. has so much power over national opinion and b. seems to hate their country and core values so much. From an external perspective, there seems to be a UK mainstream media backlash against the fundamental core UK values which resulted in many nations previously holding the UK in such high regard.
The UK Mainstream media is not, perhaps untrustworthy, but is certainly not balanced or serving the national interests at this time.
John Cleese has an opportunity to go and live somewhere better. Good luck to him.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I trust some of the mainstream media. This chart offers a good and accurate guide to media bias:
My preferred sources of news and analysis, in no particular order:
* BBC
* ABC (Australia)
* The Hill
* The Atlantic
* The Financial Times
* Axios
* Reuters
* Bloomberg
* Politico
* Christian Science Monitor
* The Wall Street Journal
* The Economist
* The Conversation
Definitely not and in particular the BBC as up here in Scotland it undoubtedly has a biased towards the SNP government whom are rarely taken to task when it comes to policy matters.
But generally the BBC has lost its unbiased reporting stance over the past few years, this was so obvious when it came to the Brexit referendum, the last US presidential election and it's blatantly pro Clinton stance and the way it spins most news coverage being economical with the facts.
As for Sky would not trust then as far as I can throw them nd as for newspapers have not read one for years.
I tend to get the news get on a variety of sources in the hope that I get the full facts of the story.
But generally the BBC has lost its unbiased reporting stance over the past few years, this was so obvious when it came to the Brexit referendum, the last US presidential election and it's blatantly pro Clinton stance and the way it spins most news coverage being economical with the facts.
As for Sky would not trust then as far as I can throw them nd as for newspapers have not read one for years.
I tend to get the news get on a variety of sources in the hope that I get the full facts of the story.
Caporegime
Similar to what Werewolf says, about most being entertainment outlets with scewed opinions.
If you just want 'the news' then read the wires. AFP, AP and Reuters for example. No opinions from talking heads, no guff, just the facts and information then you can form your own opinion.
Broadcast wise well it's a bit of a shower at the moment. Sky News is just abhorrent, it's basically the Daily Mail of the TV, just disgusting. BBC News with it's entertainment form of 'Breakfast' is just really puffy with absolutely no form of investigatitave broadcasting it's just entertainment. Though the World Service news channel i find really informative. And some of the radio programs like Money Box are good. I haven't watched the 10 o'clock news on any UK channel in over a decade so can't comment on that as a news broadcast. ITV morning news entertainment in the form of GMB is the same as Sky News, just rancid. Al Jazeera is okay if you don't think about it too much, I find it good to watch just to get an idea of what's going on in the middle east similar to the BBC World Service, which is really good for African affairs.
Newspaper (online versions) well, most if not all opinion pieces will be scewed, but there are a few that are doing really good investigative journalism I think at the moment. The Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, The Hill. Vox, The Atlantic, The Intercept do really good entertainment news reports I find, they might be slightly scewed opinions or focused in a certain way but at least the facts are properly checked and laid bare.
Other than them.most of the time I just read the wires online as it's just quicker and easier to get the bare news rather than the guff you get elsewhere.
If you just want 'the news' then read the wires. AFP, AP and Reuters for example. No opinions from talking heads, no guff, just the facts and information then you can form your own opinion.
Broadcast wise well it's a bit of a shower at the moment. Sky News is just abhorrent, it's basically the Daily Mail of the TV, just disgusting. BBC News with it's entertainment form of 'Breakfast' is just really puffy with absolutely no form of investigatitave broadcasting it's just entertainment. Though the World Service news channel i find really informative. And some of the radio programs like Money Box are good. I haven't watched the 10 o'clock news on any UK channel in over a decade so can't comment on that as a news broadcast. ITV morning news entertainment in the form of GMB is the same as Sky News, just rancid. Al Jazeera is okay if you don't think about it too much, I find it good to watch just to get an idea of what's going on in the middle east similar to the BBC World Service, which is really good for African affairs.
Newspaper (online versions) well, most if not all opinion pieces will be scewed, but there are a few that are doing really good investigative journalism I think at the moment. The Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, The Hill. Vox, The Atlantic, The Intercept do really good entertainment news reports I find, they might be slightly scewed opinions or focused in a certain way but at least the facts are properly checked and laid bare.
Other than them.most of the time I just read the wires online as it's just quicker and easier to get the bare news rather than the guff you get elsewhere.
Soldato
No
I have a level of cynicism instilled in me that renders me unable to take anything at face value from any company. Whether it be the press, a company, a charity, etc, I trust nothing. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. I believe that no company has your interests at heart, no bank is "doing right by us" and no charity has genuinely good motives once they realise there are ways to skim money off the top of donations.
The press all have an agenda as far as I'm concerned. Some more than others and yes there are publications I'd trust sooner than others but at the end of the day they're all working towards the bottom line.
This might seem tin-foil-hatty and it's a shame that there are people out there who genuinely want to make a difference and make the world a better place but in most cases these aren't sensational enough to sell papers so the evil selfish ones are the ones who make it to the top where they then have the power to dictate what does and doesn't get done. Helping others is bad for business so the good folks get stifled or in many cases their motivations are used to generate even more profit.
This is the world we live in. It's why things like the Panama papers happened and is still happening, it's why things like Cambridge Analytics happened, it's why things like Deepwater Horizon happened. People everywhere making decisions based purely on the bottom line and screw what everyone else thinks.
Sad but that's human nature for you.
The press all have an agenda as far as I'm concerned. Some more than others and yes there are publications I'd trust sooner than others but at the end of the day they're all working towards the bottom line.
This might seem tin-foil-hatty and it's a shame that there are people out there who genuinely want to make a difference and make the world a better place but in most cases these aren't sensational enough to sell papers so the evil selfish ones are the ones who make it to the top where they then have the power to dictate what does and doesn't get done. Helping others is bad for business so the good folks get stifled or in many cases their motivations are used to generate even more profit.
This is the world we live in. It's why things like the Panama papers happened and is still happening, it's why things like Cambridge Analytics happened, it's why things like Deepwater Horizon happened. People everywhere making decisions based purely on the bottom line and screw what everyone else thinks.
Sad but that's human nature for you.
Soldato
People seem to think that with Twitter and Facebook etc they have found a source of untouched facts that "they" can't skew to an agenda. Obviously this has diminished recently with all the fake news scandals, but the sheeple still think if it's come from a "friend" then it holds true.
I cringe when people say the BBC isn't to be trusted, it's just a ridiculous statement. I only have 2 news sources; the BBC and the Guardian.
I cringe when people say the BBC isn't to be trusted, it's just a ridiculous statement. I only have 2 news sources; the BBC and the Guardian.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,861
The BBC is broadly non party political I feel but it does have it's biases. The closer to the BBC the story is the more significant the bias but once you're in o European or World news its trustworthy in my opinion. A problem with the BBC is it gives away so much content for free that is updated so frequently at licence payers expense that is undercuts the market for other UK news outlets. We complain about the bias of the UK papers but they have to have a very opinionated position to capture market when "pure" news is being given away free in gargantuan amounts. But at least the BBC's investigative journalism isn't too overbearing so it does leave some room in the market for that.
Soldato
I trust some of the mainstream media. This chart offers a good and accurate guide to media bias:
My preferred sources of news and analysis, in no particular order:
* BBC
* ABC (Australia)
* The Hill
* The Atlantic
* The Financial Times
* Axios
* Reuters
* Bloomberg
* Politico
* Christian Science Monitor
* The Wall Street Journal
* The Economist
* The Conversation
I concur.
It's worth noting that how you read media makes a big difference, wording of articles plays a big part and can be easily missed.
Caporegime
Al Jazeera and RT all the news i need.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Says it all really.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,975
I agree with all this.
I do get most, but not all of my news from the BBC news channel/BBC news website.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
I don’t watch mainstream media. Not really bothered what happens anywhere else in the world.