news of the world

Discussion in 'THE AIGBURTH ARMS' started by neilold, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. neilold

    neilold Flight Co-Ordinator

    Apr 23, 2009
    above you all in cheshire
    is hyperactive and biased media a curse or a blessing? Does it simply anger us, or does it offer an opportunity to challenge that outlook , thus expanding knowledge?
  2. Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century

    Deep_Space_in_the_15th_Century Supply Officer

    Sep 23, 2016
    Deep Space in the 15th Century
    If it were up to me, and if it was practical, I'd pass a law saying media outlets had to have clearly delineated sections marked FACT and OPINION. It's insidious when people think they're reading a "report" on an event, but it switches back and forth between facts and opinions. But even if newspapers refrained from peppering news reports with their own opinions, there would still be bias in that they make decisions about what to cover and what to ignore.

    If you've seen online political debates, you've seen each side refusing to accept the sources of the other side. For example, righty will link an article in the Daily Mail about Muslims being terrible. Lefty rolls his eyes: "The Mail? Seriously? It's biased!", then proceeds to link an article from the Guardian about Muslims being wonderful. Now righty rolls his eyes "The Guardian? You dismiss the Mail because it's biased, but you're linking the Guardian?!". They're both biased. Which newspaper isn't biased.

    Or A will link to a story he read in an A-wing paper. B will refuse to read it because it's an A-wing paper, which means it's full of smeg. B will insist on being provided with the same story in a B-wing paper before he considers it. A peruses B's approved papers and discovers none of them covered this story. Not surprising, they have a narrative to maintain, so they pick and choose which events to cover. That they didn't cover it only proves how biased they are. But B's conclusion is that it only proves the A-wing paper is lying.

    Part of the problem is that most of the media is private companies pumping out a product to make a profit. So they have to think about their audience and sales figures and ratings and advertising. What does their audience want to hear? What do their advertisers not want to hear? Newspapers don't challenge their readers' bias, because newspapers rely on their readers' financial support. So, even if they wanted to challenge their readers, they wouldn't for fear of losing them. Also, they wouldn't because they're people and they think their opinions are right, so unless it's a debating club where you have to be able to argue either side, why would they.

    Within the UK, only the BBC have an ostensible commitment to simply informing the public of facts without pushing an agenda and without worrying about profit. And while it says that on paper, I think they still fall short by the nature of the business. Andrew Marr famously said "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.” And that's not an accusation from a right-wing outside critic, it's a frank admission from the BBC political editor who describes himself as a liberal. I say "admission" because they're not supposed to have a bias of any description. When googling for that quote I came up with this amusing article about a Telegraph columnist's experience with the BBC calling him to appear on programmes to fill their right-winger quota.

    Certain people become journalists. Career journalism happens in certain places. So I think you end up with biases where a media class lives in a media class bubble away from the rest of us. Journalism biases toward the middle-class, the urban, etc. On the TV you get certain people giving their opinions every night. People in suits. People with "professional opinions" who are definitively designated a this-or-that-wing commentator and come on to poselytise because it's their job. Aside from the token white-van-man column where the media steps down to patronisingly give a commoner three lines, you just don't see ordinary working-class people in the media. And that's not necessarily a conspiracy, it's just the way it is. If they were in the media then they wouldn't be working-class anymore! But imagine if one night, instead of the professional chatterers, we had an hour where a brickie and a waitress got to spout their opinions. It just wouldn't happen. The suits would be terrified (and so would the aforementioned brickie and waitress).

    Imagine if we had a system like jury duty, where to ensure the media was impartial, random members of the public were given hour-long opinion shows. It'd be chaos. Another obvious bias is that news shows bias towards people with opinions! Swathes of the population don't look up from their navels long enough to have articulated political opinions. Or they're just too busy. It would be farcical, but in the name of representation, there should be commentators representing "don't care". Every show with a left-winger and a right-winger squabbling should feature someone in the middle yawning.

    In case it's not obvious I have no idea how news opinion shows work.
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
    Freeborn and Strat-tastic like this.
  3. Strat-tastic

    Strat-tastic Flight Co-Ordinator

    Mar 27, 2012
    Scandalous Grace
    Brilliant :lol:
    Freeborn and PeeJayHarvey like this.
  4. Nikki the Great

    Nikki the Great Console Officer

    May 14, 2012
    Very interesting stuff and all, but I would like to know what @goploikumax thinks about this.

Share This Page