"The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...18/nbbc118.xml
Printable View
"The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...18/nbbc118.xml
The debate is raised up for any major news corp. Some of them are valid, some not quite so. As far as I've been able to tell, BBC is pretty impartial. Fox and CNN, on the other hand, stateside news corps that are fairly biased about a lot of issues. Personally, if I really need to know what's going on, I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Comedy shows, maybe, but the most unbiased news out there.
Timeshifter, i agree wholeheartedly. What does that say about the other stations when Fox tv is considered "Fair and Balanced" in comparison?
And nothing nice can be said about Bill Oreilley(spell?)
I think the BBC is just as biased as the others. You have to compare it to PBS (or NPR) stateside.
As far as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report - funny they are, impartial they are not.
maybe not, but if you watch them both you get an impartial view. One makes fun of democrats the other republicans.
The only people calling Fox "Fair and Balanced" are Fox folks. Everybody else knows they are about as biased as anybody gets.
However, if you get your news from the TV, since there's lots of chaff and little wheat, you might as well watch anything you want to, as you won't be particularly well informed by anybody.
i have reuters bookmarked in my phone
What's a better source?Quote:
...if you get your news from the TV...
Over here the broadcast news (TV and Radio) tend to be viewed as pretty impartial while the papers have a clear bias (which they're quite hapy to acknowledge). Internet news is generally an off-shoot of a broadcaster or a paper and just follows the same line as its parent.
Is that different in the states? I get the impression broadcast news in the US is highly partisan but, never having seen it first hand, I really don't know.
When a so-called "highly respected" network anchor intentionally broadcasts bogus (and quite easily verified as such) information he knows is false in order to affect the outcome of a presidential election then I would have to say yes, it is different in the states. Quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
There is no impartiality on network news here whatsoever. That's why I get all my news from internet rumors...
Is your printed press bias too?
Is that a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record" here in the states has an actual propagandist of Hamas (he's also an unindicted 9/11 co-conspirator) writing op-eds:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/op...erland&emc=rss
We have exactly ONE paper with a right-wing bias: the Washington Times. The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page is somewhat right-wing, and the New York Post prides itself on being the anti-NYT. Pretty much every other paper in the U.S. is biased off the deep end of the political left.
// I'm a former member of the liberal media, btw
BBC World News isn't impartial.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The litmus test is not only in the wording of articles, but what articles are reported in the first place.
There is no media out there that is not biased. That's because bias is in the eye of the beholder. Conservatives say anything that is not conservative is a liberal bias. Liberals don't say much of anything (except that Fox sucks). There was a book put out a couple years back by some conservative talking about the bias of the liberal media. Unfortunately, while he discussed ways to prove it, he was too lazy to actually performs the tests. Once somebody did, it appeared that US media had a conservative bias based on his tests. Therefore, either his tests were wrong or his hypothesis was wrong.....but who cares. It sure didn't cause him to pull his book, or retract his statements, nor did it cause the conservatives to start complaining about a conservative bias to the media. Basically, everybody looked at that, ignored it, and went on with their own agenda.
My reason for saying TV news is a bad source of information doesn't have anything to do with political bias, however. If you watch a news program in the 80's, and compare it to a news program of today, you would find that there are FAR fewer subjects covered in the modern news show, and only about one/hour is actually news. The rest is all thinly veiled "celebrity news" or "product placement news". The vast majority of the stories are pure tripe. It may be left tripe or right tripe, but unless you have very few brain cells to begin with, it isn't actually news.
Since I don't have a TV, and never have, I only see news programs once every few years, so I have been shocked at the decline in quality. I'm surprised they even mention Iraq, and they certainly don't waste any time on Iraq if a celebrity has been spotted anywhere on planet earth. It's all drivel, and not very much of that!
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot: BAH!!! HUMBUG!!
The best source of information in the united states is the associated press. It is the master source most of the news agencies pull their stories from before then lean them one way or the other.
Some day, the US government will control every story. 1984 here we come...
U.S. TV news is great - if your life revolves around "American Idol" or Paris Hilton...
"I'm Kent Brockman, on the eleven o'clock news tonight...a certain type of soft drink has been found to be lethal, but we won't tell you which one until after sports and the weather with Sonny Storm."
"Things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for Philosophy majors - useful people are starting to feel the pinch."
"Dozens of people are gunned down each day, but until now, none of them was important. I'm Kent Brockman. At 3:00 PM Friday, local autocrat C. Montgomery Burns was shot, following a tense confrontation at town hall. He was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. He was then taken to a better hospital where his condition was upgraded to 'alive.' "
"Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together."
"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."
why are you quoting a fake news caster? The real ones are much funnier. Don't you love how they smile when they tell you how many people died in horrible mangling accidents that day?
Actually, there's a local reporter who would almost make the news worth watching. Not listening to, mind you, but the watching wouldn't be bad.
oh yeah? 36DD? To give you an idea what my local ones are like, one of them was a contestant on "deal or no deal" about 2 months ago.
Thanks, now I'm gonna have Don Henley's Dirty Laundry stuck in my head for the next couple of days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Have you seen the smokin' hot French news anchor? Makes me wanna get sattellite...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/...er scandal.jpg
I don't speak a word of French, but damn, I would be more than willing to learn...
That's what I'm talkin' bout!!!
Of course, the topic being covered, if that box has anything to do with it, shows that French TV is no better than US TV as far as covering puff pieces instead of news. A story about battling lesbian NFL cheerleaders? Is that REALLY worth the time it takes up?.....well, actually, that's not all that bad a subject, really.
There was a channel over here that used to do topless news for a while. It was an inspired combination. Our unwashd masses were never better informed.:D