BS: Sources of unbiased information

Subject: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 09:49 AM

There has been much criticism (justified IMHO) of the Daily Mail on other threads.

However, in order to form an informed opinion we need access to unbiased reports on all manner of things from domestic politics to international situations.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a national daily newspaper that provides this, although the Independent began with this as an objective.

I would be interested to hear what others think are good, objective sources of information from media of any type.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 10:10 AM

BBC online.
No newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 11:03 AM

There are none, only varying degrees of bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 11:49 AM

Unbiased information ? Compared to The Mail - even Viz and Sickipaedia

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 12:04 PM

Biased means any news that disagrees with my world view. It has ever been thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 12:27 PM

It is important when discussing 'bias' to keep separate the idea of intentional, one-sided distortion of facts and the interpretation of them... from the simple & unavoidable choices we all make when telling a story or choosing what information to convey.

Some sources 'intend' to be accurate, honest and as fair as possible, even though they obviously have to pick & choose when reporting news. Other sources make no secret of their basic position.

The only real way to sort it all out is to read & listen to many sources, (bearing in mind that in doing so YOU are choosing), and attempt to see patterns.

Personally, I look at their explanations OF their choices and the flaws in logic I find to tell me... sort of... whether they are at least trying to be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 01:03 PM

The distinction Bill talks about is an important one. Some of it speaks (I think) to who owns the reporting organizations and what the owners' longer-term intentions are. I don't expect unbiased reporting from the NRA for example. Nor would I from Canada's National Post. Some organizations purvey the finest in propaganda; some governments do too. If I read Bill correctly, we have to pick and choose based on multiple sources that we 'trust' to graeter or lesser degrees. Fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 01:14 PM

Cherry picking snippets in order to justify the prejudices of sections of society you align your lies to is a very good business model.

With regard to The Daily M*il, most tabloids and to a degree even broadsheets are guilty of this, but Dacre's arsewipe has it to a fine art.

Mind you, I wish some of what they say was true. They reckoned that I earned £200K as an NHS chairman back in the day, (we got £18,500 by the way,) and more recently that Mrs Musket, a hospital consultant got £180K for a few hours work. (She leaves the house at 6.30am and rarely gets home before 8.00pm, and earns nowhere near that.)

Yeah, think of the guitars I could waste my money on if they didn't print lies eh?

I love the websites monitoring The Daily M*il and keeping a running tally of what causes cancer and what cures it according to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 02:00 PM

What Bill said. Plus ethnic and class diversity. (People at the bottom of any ladder usually see and know things people at the top and middle either don't choose to see, or choose to keep covered.)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 02:59 PM

I can think of a number of U.S. publications, plus PBS/Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.
I particularly like:
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
The New Yorker
The Jesuits' America Magazine
Der Spiegel (available in English)
FGrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (don't know of an English version)
Wall Street Journal (Murdoch ownership hasn't damaged it much)
Chicago Tribune (partly for sentimental reasons
The Times of London

And I really enjoy coverage from BBC

Even though some of these may be thought to have certain political biases, I think they all work to present information factually.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 04:03 PM

It's no use looking for unbiased information. What you need to be doing is looking for information that is presented with honesty and integrity. Only your own study skills - your ability to discriminate, to be critical by default, to be honest with yourself and to be sceptical - can inform your judgement. The reason why no information provided by the media can be unbiased is that, no matter how wise the editor is, someone has decided what goes on the front page, what goes on the bottom of page 23, what column inches each item gets and what gets left out altogether. Similar considerations apply to the news on the radio and the telly. Detecting hidden tendentiousness is crucial. It's there in every news item in the Daily Mail you'll read. You'll never see it in a Guardian news item. That is not to say that Guardian news reporting is unbiased. It is not. But there is a world of difference in the degree of honesty and integrity between the two. Either you can see it or you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 04:46 PM

Bill D and Steve have it right, but you can take it a stage further. If you know the biases in the various sources that is a useful guide to find the right balance. There is one major exception though: the stuff that isn't published at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 05:25 PM

Well, there is bias, and then there is bullshit: I give you Fox (Faux) "News"[sic].

Caveat lector.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:13 PM

If you already have it all figured out, all you need are media sources that reinforce your existing views- the frequent reality of what is defined has been "unbiased" news (that does not exist, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 07:40 PM

The default should be to view everything you're told with extreme scepticism. Set the bar high. Always ask for more evidence if it seems that there's scope for your information to be less than reliable. Let's call it "the Dawkins Approach."

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 07:57 PM

Not "unbiased" by any stretch, but a great antidote to the mainstream news: Democracy Now and
CounterSpin on Pacifica Radio (available streaming online as well as archived).

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 07:00 AM

One philosopher s approach on assessing fact and opinion, as to what Steve said about media, (minus Dawkins, which could alienate some).

While some news sources have less, and others, more, opinion often frames many news articles to some degree, as a determination often must be made on who to interview and whose account of events to feature. :



Fact and opinion 

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 07:05 AM

Keith A of Hertford obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 07:11 AM

I certainly don't consider the BBC unbiased , though maybe not intentional. Everyone has a bias and worldview, and as to Stevens model of Dawkins ...........bias in the extreme !.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 08:03 AM

Reality does tend to be biased against fantasy pete. You are just going to have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 08:30 AM

The BBC you say:

BBC yet again ignores Gaza missile fire – in English

Late on the night of August 26th/27th a missile fired from the Gaza Strip landed in the Eshkol region of the Western Negev. The IDF responded by targeting a Hamas weapons manufacturing facility in the central Gaza Strip. There was no coverage of the attack on the BBC News website's Middle East page on the morning of August 27th.

This was the second case of missile fire from Gaza hitting Israeli territory since the beginning of this month (at least two additional launches fell short). The prior attack was also ignored by BBC News but – like many of the previous incidents over the past year – the Israeli response to that attack on August 7th did receive Arabic language coverage.BBC Arabic report response missile 26 8

So too was the case with latest incident: whilst there was no English language coverage of the Wednesday night attack despite the BBC clearly being aware that it took place, on the morning of August 27th an article appeared on the BBC Arabic website with a last-first headline which leads with the Israeli response.

The BBC's record of reporting missile fire from the Gaza Strip since the end of last summer's conflict can be seen below. Not one of the missiles hitting Israeli territory was reported in English at the time the incident happened. On one occasion the Israeli response to missile attacks was reported in English and on six other occasions it was reported in Arabic.

September 16th 2014 – mortar fire at the Eshkol region – not reported by BBC News but briefly mentioned in a later article on another topic.

October 31st 2014 – missile fire at the Eshkol region – not reported by BBC News.

December 19th 2014 – missile fire at the Eshkol region – not covered by BBC News at the time but Israeli response reported in English.

April 23rd 2015 – missile fire at Sha'ar HaNegev region – not reported by BBC News.

May 26th 2015 – missile fire at Gan Yavne area – not covered by BBC News but Israeli response reported by BBC Arabic.

June 3rd 2015 – missile fire at Sdot Negev region – not covered by BBC News but Israeli response reported by BBC Arabic.

June 6th 2015 – missile fire at Hof Ashkelon area – not covered by BBC News but Israeli response reported by BBC Arabic. Later briefly mentioned in a June 10th report by Yolande Knell.

June 11th 2015 – missile fire (fell short in Gaza Strip) – later mentioned in a June 12th article by Yolande Knell.

June 23rd 2015 – missile fire at Yad Mordechai area – not covered by BBC News but Israeli response reported by BBC Arabic.

July 16th 2015 – missile fire at the Ashkelon area – not reported by the BBC in English.

August 7th 2015 – missile fire at the Kissufim area – not covered by the BBC's English language services, but Israeli response reported by BBC Arabic.

August 27th 2015 – missile fire at the Eshkol area – not reported by BBC News in English, but Israeli response covered by BBC Arabic.

This now well-established pattern of omission of timely reporting of missile attacks in English, whilst covering the Israeli responses to those attacks in Arabic, is clearly not conducive to meeting the BBC's pledge to audiences that it will "keep them in touch with what is going on in the world".

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:54 AM

I said that being ultra-sceptical and always asking for evidence could be called the Dawkins Approach. That is not bias; that is the effort to eliminate bias. I clearly was not describing his attitude to faith. Kindly do not misrepresent me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 10:01 AM

Missile attacks via ramshackle rockets that do little or no damage are simply not going to be reported every time they happen (which has been thousands). Likewise, not each individual house built on stolen Palestinian land is going to be separately reported. I'm not complaining about that. We have to receive news from the media intelligently. News in the media is a summary. We can decide for ourselves whether the summary is fair if we have the study skills to do so. Otherwise every newspaper would stretch from here to Gibraltar and we'd need a hundred channels beaming out the news 24 hours a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 11:38 AM

"Kindly do not misrepresent me."

Not the intent of my comment.

Ditto, from me.
;)

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 02:25 PM

Beg you pardon, Ed. My comment was directed at pete, not you. Sorry for not making that clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 05:24 PM

OK. understood, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 05:27 PM

Oops, last guest was Ed T

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 07:28 PM

No worries, Ed. Any puzzlement over the meaning of our posts would always be resolved by further enquiry. That is possible between people of good will. With others, one has to be a little more direct.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 08:14 PM

The Guardian admits (sort of) to it's bias: The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 08:22 PM

I don't know what sort of bias you think the article was admitting to. The way I read it, it was an honest attempt at examining the conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:26 PM

"references to Israel/US "global domination"" = anti Israel bias.

"the term "slavish" to describe the US relationship with Israel" = anti Israel bias.

"in an article on a lost tribe of Mallorcan Jews, what I regarded as a gratuitous reference to "the island's wealthier families"." = antisemitic trope.

"a columnist used the term "the chosen" in an item on the release of Gilad Shalit".........""Chosenness", in Jewish theology, tends to refer to the sense in which Jews are "burdened" by religious responsibilities; it has never meant that the Jews are better than anyone else. Historically it has been antisemites, not Jews, who have read "chosen" as code for Jewish supremacism." = antisemitic trope.

No surprise, really, that you don't acknowledge the blatant bias and antisemitism that the editor has recognized and removed from the reporters' writings.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:42 AM

So the Guardian admits that it needs to be more vigilant in its choice of language regarding Israel. I agree absolutely. It's good, isn't it? Have you got any examples for us of similar examinations of conscience by the Mail or by any Murdoch paper or other Murdoch news outlet about their choice of language regarding Arabs? After all, there are far more media news outlets that support Israel than the other way round, so you shouldn't have trouble sourcing such mea culpas. Unless you're biased, of course. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:48 AM

Have you got any examples for us of similar examinations of conscience by the Mail or by any Murdoch paper or other Murdoch news outlet about their choice of language regarding Arabs?

Have you any examples of bad choice of language re. Arabs?

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:03 AM

Have you got any examples of bad choice of language re Jews? Note, Jews, Keith, not Israel. I trust that even you, unlike our cowardly anonymous Guest, can make the distinction. The deliberate blurring of which, as we all know, is the subtext behind his/her latest piece of vitriol.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:37 AM

Have you any examples of bad choice of language re. Arabs?

Why don't you check with "The Historians", Keith, and then get back to us. They're absolutely the last word on any and every thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 11:13 AM

Greg, if you want to learn history, you should go to the history books.
Historians write them.

Steve, you asked for,
"examinations of conscience by the Mail or by any Murdoch paper or other Murdoch news outlet about their choice of language regarding Arabs"

Are you aware of any bad choices?
Can you give us an example?

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 11:33 AM

Are you aware of any examinations of conscience by any Murdoch outlet or the Mail? Or do you hold them in such high regard that you think they're infallible? And I could just remind you that our Guest-coward didn't know about the rather mild examples in
the Guardian until he read about them - in the Guardian, which was examining its conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 11:48 AM

"the Guardian, which was examining its conscience"

BS.....it was removing biased and antisemitic reporting by it's reporters. Keep on denying though, it is expected of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 12:02 PM

An article in the Guardian was criticising its own language in connection with Israel. You choose that occasion to come out and criticise the Guardian for what you see as antisemitism. You did not know about the instances you read about in that article until you read the article, otherwise it would have been a cast-iron certainty that you'd have been here crowing about them long before now. Your opportunism on this occasion is misplaced, hypocritical and utterly transparent.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 12:55 PM

Greg, if you want to learn history, you should go to the history books.<.I>

This from one who has admitted over and over he doesn't read history books himself.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 02:44 PM

It's worth noting that Journalism is a business--in the words of the cynical editor, Henry Connell in "Meet John Doe", "We're after
circulation. What we need is fireworks. People who can hit with
sledge hammers—start arguments." Unbiased reporting and balanced coverage are fairly low priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 03:17 PM

I think that it's very important that anyone wishing to react to what has been said about the Guardian should do one very simple thing. Read the article first. Then, if you're not satisfied, give me another example of any other media outlet that has made such an unforced admission of slip-ups of this kind and taken action to prevent their reoccurrence.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 05:41 PM

Now, Steve, you surely don't want to interject facts & logic into the discussion, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:08 PM

It would be nice, Greg, but when we have Keith and the Guest-coward with chips on their shoulders bigger than my arse it ain't easy. Of all the sources to go into the attack against, a paper that is actually trying to put things right.... The only time one of Guest's or Keith's pet gutter-rags has to admit they're wrong is when they get taken to court for hacking murdered kids' phones or when they lie about Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough, etc. it's shocking, it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Joe_F
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:16 PM

Even biased sources can be valuable if you pay attention to what they let slip when they are talking about something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:29 PM

This is a thread discussing bias in the media. I presented an example of this. There's no need to get all defensive about that. It is commendable that The Guardian recognizes this in it's reportage and takes action to remedy it, the majority of media do not. I'm pretty sure that if the examples were posted without the context of the Guardian admitting to it you would have denied the bias and antisemitism in evidence. And so it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:35 PM

It's weird, innit. We start a thread on trying to find unbiased sources, and the two institutions in the UK that try their damnedest more than all the others to give fair coverage, the Beeb and the Guardian (for all their faults, which are many) are the ones that get it in the neck from the usual-suspect regular backwoodsmen (with apologies to him of the capital B). Not a word of demurral from them against the disreputable Murdoch media stable or the Daily Mail.

And I take your point, Stim. Journalism, in this capitalist world of ours, has to make money just like any other industry. Even the Beeb has to watch its news ratings versus ITV and Channel 4. This colours everything we ever hear or read in the news. Bias is rampant. As responsible citizens it behoves us treat the news with healthy scepticism, having regard to the reputation of its sources, and to garner as many sources as possible. Lame attacks on the Beeb's or the Guardian's coverage of Israel, simply because they fail to feed your own prejudices, are just dismal. I'd also add that both the Beeb and the Guardian fearlessly allow the airing of extremely diverse opinion in their political programmes/comment and debate columns. If you deny this, you simply haven't been watching or reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:47 PM

Well, Guest-coward, you have already accused me once of being in denial, even though I've denied nothing (go on - prove it!) so you're very reliable, aren't you? Had you posted the examples without telling me that the Guardian had admitted its errors, I'd either have ignored you (because I recognise you as a person of extreme prejudice and have better things to do with my time), or I would have checked your sources before opening my gob. The fact is, until you happened across that Guardian article, you had no idea about what you perceive to be Guardian bias in those particular reports. Not a clue. You read the thing and it immediately triggered your prejudice. Having read the piece you did your usual banal kneejerk you're-all-antisemites stunt. Seen it all from you before. Turn the record over.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:17 PM

Journalism, in this capitalist world of ours, has to make money just like any other industry.

More's the pity, Steve, but time was you could make money at HONEST journalism, e.g. Ed Murrow & his ilk. What we have now is tabloid entertainment, not journalism at all- in most cases. The Beeb and Guardian are the best of a bad lot.

But I'm NEVER going to forgive the Beeb for discontinuing short-wave broadcasts to N. America- which I used to listen to regularly.

Subject: RE: BS: Sources of unbiased information
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:26 PM

I suppose the interwebbie thang has supplanted those short-wave broadcasts, more's the pity. I remember being able to make my radio make swanee whistle noises on short wave just by wafting my hands round the aerial!