Neutrality of reporting

dangerstat

dangerstat

dangerstat

Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2008
Posts
5,060
Location
In the ether
Inspired from a post in the hardware section, I thought I'd ask about how neutral you think news providers are, and especially technology news providers (major ones, not the register but more like cnet etc.)

Do you think news is in general is neutral - especially major players like the BBC, CNN, ABC etc.. or do you think you're getting the facts the way the "western governments" want you to here them.

Personally I don't question and have absolutely no examples of the BBC or Times or pretty much any respected source being blatently biased, but for some reason aparently some of you do.

Can anyone show me some cast iron examples of major news providers being biased?

Cheers

Dstat
 
I don't think that technology news providers are that biased, there's not a whole lot they can lean towards unless they're e.g. subsidised by a particular company.

News reporting on the other hand is a completely different issue. I'd say Western sources are just as biased toward their own government's wishes as others. They're like a lot of things, say movies (e.g. the nationality of Bond villians), games (Shock and Awe on COD4?) etc.; information is presented in the way that they want it to be seen.

I don't have any real examples either, but while historically (e.g. in WWII) the BBC was renowned for being the most accurate and "neutral" it's certainly doesn't hold such accolades in my eyes any more.
 
Last edited:
There is no neutrality in anything. Everyone and every organisation always has ulterior motives, from your best mate to the BBC.
 
Last edited:
Well most news organisations are known for their political leanings, almost every journalist, has an opinion, because they are out their digging for stories they are interested in. A reporter, is just that, someone reporting news being fed to them.

IE the guys that sit at the desk on BBC news, they aren't out digging up stories, other people are, they are simply relaying information, they aren't journalists or writers, they speak thats their skill.

However, a guy following a campaign trail, say the US election following politicians and writing about what he see's will have a biased opinion and thats NOT A BAD THING.

You can't not have an opinion and there would be no point to life if you didn't. A journalist will either disagree or agree with something Obama said, and a good journalist will tell you why he did so.

The fact is, obviously which thread this stems from, Charlie D isn't a cut and paste news poster on a tech site, he's a journalist who goes digging, asking questions and tells the story with whatever bias he likes, he is biased, so what, so is everyone on this forum, everyone you've ever met or will ever meet. AS I said in that thread, he has bias, not as much as most people believe, but the gist of what he's saying beneath the babble, has been generally accurate over the past 2 years. I don't discount information because I don't like the personal style, nor viewpoint of the person writing. That also means I'll read opposing views to my own and journalism from people I don't normally agree with, take on the information, come up with my own opinion and maybe they'll persaude me I was wrong.

I don't think western media is giving you the stories/opinions/slant governments want you to hear, thats twaddle. But fox for instance, give incredibly right wing biased News, other stations are left wing and tend to give opposite sides to the story.

BBC news, and their site, is really just a glorified news posting site, theres very little journalism going on these days and not a huge amount to push you one way or the other. Their news covers mostly, shallow stories in a shallow manor.

I've actually forgotten who it was, the Telegraph was it, who dug, and uncovered all the MP's expense's account, its fair to say their news reporting was biased, they didn't like what the MP's were doing, and were against it and happy to say so.

THats journalism, most of what the BBC do, is not journalism anymore and hasn't been for years, and years, and years.
 
Last edited:
Slightly different angle to your original question, but I work in this industry and I think the bulk of journalists are quite proud of their editorial integrity and lack of bias. While there's certainly pressure from advertisers (and our own advertising departments) to try and keep people happy or even suppress some stories, I think that most editors get pretty shirty when asked to do so and would rarely publish anything they weren't happy with. Most editors also receive legal threats too.

I'm sure that it happens from time to time, and I'm sure that it happens more with some of the online sources run by people who may not be au fait with the normal editorial processes who may be keen to get kit/cash for favourable coverage. However, I don't see much, if any of it, where I work. However, you've only got to look at sites like Wikileaks to see that companies can forcefully suppress journalists too.

The BBC has guidelines on neutrality and bias. I think the docs on this have been online before. Quite interesting reading.
 
The BBC certainly aren't neutral, any drug article they write will be full of misinformation and sensationalism, anti-drug propaganda.
 
I wouldn't have said any source can be absolutely unbiased, that's pretty much a given based on the fact that people write the news and we've all got a level of bias inherent to us. Some people or media sources are better than others though. However as long as you know what the prevailing bias and rough level of emphasis the media source puts on their own agenda then I reckon you can find some value in almost any media report or perhaps I should say at least it allows you to give the proper weight to it when evaluating it.
 
depends... if they write something good about AMD then their biased, if they write good about intel then this is fine :D... i could give many examples from here but...

...so whos got the worm-can opener??? :p
 
dangerstat said:
Examples please :)
Click to expand...

Do a search for "GHB" or "GBL" on the bbc news website, almost every article has "date rape" in there somewhere along with the mention of people dying on the drug.

What's funny is that their articles/programmes actually contradict each other, as in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/surgery/advice/drink_drugs/ghb_gbh/ they state that GHB can't be tasted in drinks, which is totally false. While here in BBC's "Horizon" there is an independent expert who says the exact opposite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNJrC4xz1S0
 
Energize said:
Do a search for "GHB" or "GBL" on the bbc news website, almost every article has "date rape" in there somewhere along with the mention of people dying on the drug.

What's funny is that their articles/programmes actually contradict each other, as in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/surgery/advice/drink_drugs/ghb_gbh/ they state that GHB can't be tasted in drinks, which is totally false. While here in BBC's "Horizon" there is an independent expert who says the exact opposite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNJrC4xz1S0
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't see anything biased in that content, a mistake (I know nothing about GHB) but biased. They don't go on to a big "drugs are bad mmmkay" speach and they do point out both positive and negative uses of the drug. Actually considering the topic I think that's very balanced :confused:
 
dangerstat said:
I'm sorry but I don't see anything biased in that content, a mistake (I know nothing about GHB) but biased. They don't go on to a big "drugs are bad mmmkay" speach and they do point out both positive and negative uses of the drug. Actually considering the topic I think that's very balanced :confused:
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't see the "GHB/GBL has ruined my life" stories they've been running then?
 
I think even the BBC etc have bias, not in a massively obvious way but a subtle way they present information differently for different stories.

One example I notice a lot are headlines which they present as if its a fact like this -

"<something> is definitely 'happening' "


<blah blah blah>

and then eventually "according to this person"
 
For me neutrality is based on yourself, not what media outlets tell you, i usually dont see any bias because i block it out, i try to just lift certain facts, if they are true or not also doesnt matter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom