1 edit
-Removed-What are your 'observations'? Do you have any objective measures of media bias?
It's 10 minutes, not 28, by the way. Also take note that it's approximately three-quarters funded by the license fee. The rest comes from the profits made by its BBC Worldwide operation, which allows advertising.
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonI listen to the BBC regularly as well as other news and information outlets. The whole of the broadcasting industry is governed by the interests of their listeners primarily, and where the money is.
What are the 'observations' you've made that led to your opinion that the BBC is biased, apart from it's funding model which is the only thing you have mentioned? And in which direction do you think they are biased?
Sure, there is the fact that "what's going on in the world" is being reported, at least what they want you to know, in the way they want you to know it, but it is only a fraction of the truth. And while they may report their observations they will never get at the heart of the causes much less the solutions.
Warning: The above is only my opinion and fraught with error and in no way should it be considered the definitive explanation. 😕
1 edit
-Removed-I think it's of the greatest importance to understand whether and how the media that informs us is biased. You said you trust the BBC even less than you trust Trump, which I find astonishing after my own ongoing personal attempts to investigate media bias. So, yes I would feel better if you gave me some meat to chew on. And say in which direction you think the Beeb is biased.
And yes, as things are I believe the BBC is easily the most impartial of the many I've looked at, though I'm sure you'll appreciate it's a massive task to determine systematic bias in news organisations, even those where bias is pretty obvious. I'm ready for you to prove me wrong, or at least provide food for thought.
Edit: I would also be interested to know (if you don't mind telling me) which news organisations you trust more than the BBC and/or more than Donald Trump, and why.
1 edit
-Removed-Thanks, that's a really interesting and informative answer.
I've found the best way to get an idea of what the BBC is reporting is to use their mobile app. You can have 20 or so feeds each based on any subject you choose* (Top Stories and 'Your News' i.e. based on what their algorithm thinks you are interested in based on what you read) are always there. For many feeds, new stories aren't updated particularly quickly, so you can basically see all the stories they have put up on a particular subject if you log in reasonably regularly. What I've heard pointed out in discussions of bias is that they tend to get accused of bias from all sides of the political divide, very often regarding the same coverage. Given that it is impossible for all of these accusations to be true at once, I agree with others that this is a strong indicator of their impartiality (i.e. if everyone hates them, they must be doing something right).
I have at various times mostly read The Telegraph, The Guardian and Observer, the Times and The Sunday Times and the Economist, as well as watching all of the 24-hour rolling news channels for longish periods of time.
With the digital age, bias is ever more easy to expose. I am reading the Wikipedia article with interest, and hopefully will have time to read criticisms of other news providers. I find Private Eye one of the most useful sources for discovering bias, although it's foolish not to be alert to possible bias when reading that, too. It's also very easy for any of us to sort of become cocooned in the news that they like (maybe 'content' is a better word), due to new innovations like news aggregators as well as countless special interest publications and websites.
On Brexit, my perception has been of equal and impartial coverage of the leave campaigns and the campaigns to stay in. But I haven't made detailed records, so it is only a perception at the moment.
*The subject must be a generally recognised one that they have tagged (e.g. arts, technology, uk news, Islamic State crisis, and so on).
Originally posted by josephwClearly, I am talking about the US, not the whole world. So for example, you are contending that these things are NOT true in the US, have I understood you correctly? [1] The economy is growing slowly, but growing. [2] Inflation is low. [3] Interest rates are low. [4] Illegal immigration rates are down. [5] Crime is generally down across the board. As a US resident and citizen, you are asserting that these indicators are untrue, is that right?
I mean everything on the list and the whole world too. The Truth is hard to find. It's somewhere on a very narrow way.
Originally posted by FMFYes and no.
Clearly, I am talking about the US, not the whole world. So for example, you are contending that these things are NOT true in the US, have I understood you correctly? [1] The economy is growing slowly, but growing. [2] Inflation is low. [3] Interest rates are low. [4] Illegal immigration rates are down. [5] Crime is generally down across the board. As a US resident and citizen, you are asserting that these indicators are untrue, is that right?
What is reported is the spin. The "indicators" are artificial manipulations subject to the vagaries of the tide of unpredictable variables. What is up today will be down tomorrow.
It's a slow bleed. Imperceptible at close range, but from a birds eye view clearly headed for Armageddon.
Does that answer your question?