Unbiased reporting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murrmurr said:
TV journalists are vain TV personalities
Click to expand...
Many are.

I've always preferred the term "Newsreader" that really is what they are.

Few do any real investigation or research, they mostly read what's given to them. Some may exercise word choices or emphasis, but they are not the people who find or write the stories, they just read them.

A lot like movie or TV actors.
 

Shero said:
Hallo again Murmurr, bet you thought I was going away and leaving you alone no, just want to say there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting anywhere. I understand what you are saying but it is literally not possible to do for a human being.
Psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics have proven that every human being has a viewpoint based on his or her unique experiences and culture and reporters are human after all.

So mon ami to get a balanced view you have to read both left wing and right wing views and hope that you are able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. Unhappily though, some prefer the fiction because it is easier to digest!
Click to expand...
No, I'll pass. Thanks, but I'll just keep following the politically and commercially unaffiliated ones.

Those viewpoints based on ones unique experiences and culture are called presuppositions, and it's quite possible to overcome them. It doesn't even require professional help, you just have to recognize them. (Having a mentor helps, tho)
 
Sunny said:
Saying, "Two senators are preventing a much-needed bill from passing" is not a lie, it's the absolute truth.
Click to expand...
Saying, "Two senators are preventing a much-needed bill from passing" is not a lie, it's the absolute truth.

It is that obvious spin that is the problem, imo. Not everyone has such filters and there is the matter of confirmational bias. It's something we all have, unfortunately or maybe fortunately. Depends on you bias towards such things. :)
 
Shero said:
Hallo again Murmurr, bet you thought I was going away and leaving you alone no, just want to say there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting anywhere. I understand what you are saying but it is literally not possible to do for a human being.
Psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics have proven that every human being has a viewpoint based on his or her unique experiences and culture and reporters are human after all.

So mon ami to get a balanced view you have to read both left wing and right wing views and hope that you are able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. Unhappily though, some prefer the fiction because it is easier to digest!
Click to expand...
I agree but I do think there is a big difference between having a slant on a topic and outright lying to deceive the public. The false equivalency drives me nuts. One person's exaggeration is not the same as another's premeditated vicious story.
 
I try to avoid cable "news" shows. For that's what they are, shows. Just opinions bounced around by two or three people on a sofa or at a table without substance whatsoever. New readers on the networks do just that, read what the street reporters and streamers sent forth. Fact or fiction? You must investigate for yourself these days. In the days of yore, we usually received it either as it was happening or immediately thereafter. No time for opinions and debate. Gone forever, I fear.
 
Alligatorob said:
Ain't no such thing, and never was. People are all inherently biased, we all have our own points of view. The best we can hope for is a balance of the biases...
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the news as delivered by Walter Cronkite. Remember him? He never told anyone what to do or what to think. He just reported the news.

walter C.jpg
 
Reporters need to get their stories to air or print. It has to have an angle to grab attention so facts are often misinterpreted or left out. It also has to be the flavour of the day that their company is promoting.
 
Alizerine said:
I agree but I do think there is a big difference between having a slant on a topic and outright lying to deceive the public. The false equivalency drives me nuts. One person's exaggeration is not the same as another's premeditated vicious story.
Click to expand...
Good point Alizerine, and some readers must take on board the fact that daily news reporters are not scientists, they are not doctors or lawyers, they are only reading the news!
 
Irwin said:
The problem is not with the news sources. It lies with the viewers who don't know the difference between opinion and fact, and they get their "facts" from opinion shows.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, not being able to tell the difference between facts and opinion is a huge short-coming with media consumers these days.
However, I will not let the opinion peddling media outlets off the hook for their journalistic responsibility to present their material in a responsible manner.
 
Irwin said:
The problem is not with the news sources. It lies with the viewers who don't know the difference between opinion and fact, and they get their "facts" from opinion shows.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Many news sources present "factual" news stories that are full of misstatements, omissions and shadings. And many news outlets refuse to cover events that don't fit their agenda. Or else they spend inordinate amounts of time on things that don't merit the coverage. Bias is revealed in what you choose to cover or not cover as well as in the way you present it. This is true on right and left.
 
I think it would benefit the masses if opinion pieces were removed from news programs. Like, Facebook them.

For a brief period, some news programs presented an editorial at the end of the program, after the weather and before sports, usually. And they were announced as editorials, so there was no confusion. Apparently those spots got popular, so they were given their own shows and time-slots...30 minutes, then an hour. That was okay. There was no confusion at all.

Now, watching major network news programs is sort of like watching a soap opera. It's stupid. Our local news programs are fine, though; the ones on the major networks.
 
Murrmurr said:
I think it would benefit the masses if opinion pieces were removed from news programs. Like, Facebook them.

For a brief period, some news programs presented an editorial at the end of the program, after the weather and before sports, usually. And they were announced as editorials, so there was no confusion. Apparently those spots got popular, so they were given their own shows and time-slots...30 minutes, then an hour. That was okay. There was no confusion at all.

Now, watching major network news programs is sort of like watching a soap opera. It's stupid. Our local news programs are fine, though; the ones on the major networks.
Click to expand...
World news on ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't bad, although they just give you a brief summary of what's going on with a few video clips and interviews. And they all have the same stories. They might be in a slightly different order, but they're all the same, as if they were all given a list of what to cover and how to cover it, which may be the case considering they're all owned by giant media conglomerates.

There's no depth, whatsoever, on network world news programs. They'll give you the who, what, where, and when, if that, but almost never the why or the how, although sometimes those aren't known at the time of the report. If you allow for commercials and feel-good stories, they only have 15-20 minutes to report everything going on in the world, so they simply don't have time for any depth. The only way to get any understanding of what's going on is to read articles from legitimate news outlets, but that requires a bit of time and the risk of being exposed to facts that don't fit one's world view, perish the thought.

Cable "news" programs are a different story. They'll give you the why and how even before the who or the what are known. Their job is to keep people perpetually outraged, even if that means lying to them.
 
@Irwin

"They'll give you the who, what, where, and when"

And that's journalism. And, as you said, good journalism is when you get updates with the "why" and/or "who" as soon as the information becomes available.

There are journalists, editorialists, reporters, and presenters. Reporters and presenters don't have to bother with fact-checking, that's the job of the first two. But you are correct, no one should confuse a journalist with either a reporter or presenter, but seems it happens a lot. I don't like those fuzzy lines, and lately it's become dangerous, imo.

Editorialists do their own type of journalism; opinion pieces. Literally, editorializing = offering ones opinion. They are wise to fact-check, but I question whether today's editorialists do enough of that. I think a lot of them are lazy.
 
Everyone has a bias. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is only in the courtroom and even then... can sometimes be subjective.

Every news organization, media website, and pundit has a bias. Sometimes they might accidentally tell the actual full truth. You have to pay attention and filter out the opinions and bias, imo.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top