Brussels Bombing

NTA

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/passenger-who-took-selfie-with-hijacker-identified-as-26yearold-brit/news-story/9959458c1124e32a6dfd8be326132991'>http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/passenger-who-took-selfie-with-hijacker-identified-as-26yearold-brit/news-story/9959458c1124e32a6dfd8be326132991</a>
 
Bloke takes selfie with hijacker :lol:

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568014" data-time="1459212417">
<div>
Most TV outlets have a clear left bias IMO.
 
Look at the supposed derision Fox News gets, just because it has a right bias. Yet the stations that have a left bias get a much easier ride.
As for the BBC they have ZERO excuse to be biased, they are publicly funded. I would be pretty ticked off if I was a British tax [payer seeing what they have become. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I know a BBC journo pretty well and had a really interesting discussion with her a couple of years ago. Her take on it was pretty interesting, and IIRC the problems seemed to be (and these were generalisations):
 
BBC journalism was heavily unionised. When Murdoch broke the unions a lot of the displaced journos ended up at the BBC with any anti-capitalism and anti-Tory feelings they might have previously had only strengthened by the whole experience. They eventually became editors and managers.
 
Quite a few social justice types went into journalism and the BBC was seen as the plum employer. And there was an element of "provider capture" in the hiring process which meant that department heads, news editors at radio stations etc were more likely to hire people who thought as they did.
 
Journalists personally defined political bias in a very specific way. Being biased towards a particular party was an obvious no-go, but being biased towards a point of view was acceptable or even admirable. So being obviously pro-Labour was not OK, but being pro a policy that Labour happened to promote was OK.
 
The fact the BBC was the dominant broadcaster brought its own problems, because people didn't have to be just journalists, if they played their cards right they could become presenters and celebrities within the same organisation.
 
There may have been more (or less) but that was the gist of it.

Tim

Ah, "entryism".

dK

I found this article raises a number of questions in relation to the historical reasons behind the current ME state. I would make this compulsory reading for any who are interested in the Middle East, in addition to the history of the Ottoman empire.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/'>http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/</a>

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="568110" data-time="1459229664">
Depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, your view on "balance" is going to be coloured. 
Partly because the political spectrum here doesn't really have a middle ground any more - a place where the parties could come together on more issues (outside offshore detention) and get a bit of progress happening. Like, I dunno, giving a shit about the people they're meant to serve? Either party tends toward spending the first half of any public engagement talking about how shit the other side are. Frustrating. 
Rather than ignore some of the stuff Fox trots out, opponents go screaming about its bias. Kind of legitimises them and gives the whole thing oxygen. In contrast, networks like Fox are mostly dismissive of the rest, and fall back on arch conservative values, which are warm and cosy for their supporters. 
EDIT: and I realise we've extensively covered Q&A previously. There are some episodes, as I said at the time, that I had little time for, mostly due to the tone of the questioning. At least with the scientists on, there is the chance to learn something (Brian Greene was awesome), but with the politicians is the same slanging match every week.</blockquote>
 
No, it's due to the fact that the ABC is vastly overrepresented by Greens supporters and sjws. Their idea of the centre is left of the labor party.

gollum

Biggest issue is unbiased news is often boring as fuck. People don't have the ability to absorb news unless it hooks them - by saying "this is a big deal because it confirms your views on other stuff"
 
So the news might be "immigrants coming from syria"
 
Thats boring, so if you are a lefty you go to the BBC or Guardian to see families & drowned toddlers. And if you are right you go to Fox or Sky to see the latest story about a failed asylum seeker raping someone. And now you know "the news" - refugees on their way, and it confirms what you already thought "we must help them & we're all just people! / they are all theives & rapists & took my job!"
 
No one picks up the FT if its laying on the tube seat when you get on.
 
Anything that presents just news, without a huge slant on it, tends to have very low readership. We aren't victims of biased reporting, we seek it out. BBC used to be very bland, but like anything it has to get viewers. Same with The Discovery Channel or The History Channel. Given the choice between "Tectonic plates live!" or "Ninjas versus Navy Seals, who'd win?" one of those is getting no views, and yet the other one is utter bullshit, but it "feels" informative-y. 
 
And of course people seek on stuff that confirms their view. Even worse they watch shows on the same channel & use that to justify a wide range of sources.

Rancid Schnitzel

That's fine for commercial media, but state media does not have an obligation to entertain and win eyeballs. It has an obligation to report the news and provide balance.

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568472" data-time="1459333314">
<div>
That's fine for commercial media, but state media does not have an obligation to entertain and win eyeballs. It has an obligation to report the news and provide balance.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The issue there is a few years back the BBC got told it had to be more commercial to broaden its appeal. And really, if you compare it to the commercial news sources it is still basically fair & even handed. Its sort of 20% biased as opposed to minimum 50% biased on all the others.
 
Plus people struggle with what is bias. IE if I watch Sky news & get my news off there & it agrees with my view of the world & I then watch BBC it seems biased as fuck. Especially if I double check my sky news with the Daily Mail. But I'm starting from a very biased view.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dK" data-cid="568437" data-time="1459317031">I found this article raises a number of questions in relation to the historical reasons behind the current ME state. I would make this compulsory reading for any who are interested in the Middle East, in addition to the history of the Ottoman empire. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/">http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/</a></blockquote>
That was a bloody good read. 
Further: oil corruption is fucking huge, apparently... <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/unaoil-bribery-scandal-corruption_us_56fa2b06e4b014d3fe2408b9?section=australia">http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/unaoil-bribery-scandal-corruption_us_56fa2b06e4b014d3fe2408b9?section=australia</a>

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dK" data-cid="568437" data-time="1459317031">
<div>
I found this article raises a number of questions in relation to the historical reasons behind the current ME state. I would make this compulsory reading for any who are interested in the Middle East, in addition to the history of the Ottoman empire.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/'>http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
Sadly the average American would rather swallow the myth that Arabs hate America for their freedoms

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="568485" data-time="1459342345">
<div>
Sadly the average American would rather swallow the myth that Arabs hate America for their freedoms
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not just the average American, most westerners everywhere have zero idea of the stuff western governments have done or the degree to which a lot of the bad shit that happens is blowback for stuff we have done. Thats one of the great things about shale & solar, the US might actually not have to give a fuck about the middle east & so stop sticking their oar in it. Europe of course will be fucked as 20 million refugees sweep in from Libya & Turkey, but I live on an island & come from another. So we are all good.

canefan

I read The Great War for civilisation a while back. It tells the same story, all of the calamities out of the Middle East and Afghanistan that threaten us now can be laid at the feet of meddling US Russian and European powers

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="568478" data-time="1459338052">
<div>
The issue there is a few years back the BBC got told it had to be more commercial to broaden its appeal. And really, if you compare it to the commercial news sources it is still basically fair & even handed. Its sort of 20% biased as opposed to minimum 50% biased on all the others.
 
Plus people struggle with what is bias. IE if I watch Sky news & get my news off there & it agrees with my view of the world & I then watch BBC it seems biased as fuck. Especially if I double check my sky news with the Daily Mail. But I'm starting from a very biased view. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think you trying to give a % bias that is lower for BBC than others. Kinds makes your point for you. Personally I think BBC is one of the the most most biased TV channels in the western world, I would put it on a par with Fox news in the US. I dispute the claim it is 'basically fair and even handed', in fact I think it is appalling.

Donsteppa

And my personal view is night to Baron's day on that one... 
I find political blogs funny on the rare times that I dare venture there, the left argues like hell that the mainstream media is biased as fuck to the right, and the right argues the exact opposite

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="568529" data-time="1459366123">
<div>
And my personal view is night to Baron's day on that one... 
I find political blogs funny on the rare times that I dare venture there, the left argues like hell that the mainstream media is biased as fuck to the right, and the right argues the exact opposite :)
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Thats ok, you will get used to being wrong.

antipodean

State funded broadcasters in Australia and perceptions of bias: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/australian-broadcasting-corporation-australia'>http://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/australian-broadcasting-corporation-australia</a>

Baron Silas Greenback

Fox News and BBC used the same argument (re air time). Are we supposed to believe them as well?

antipodean

If you can demonstrate the flaws in their methodology, do so.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568602" data-time="1459389844">
<div>
If you can demonstrate the flaws in their methodology, do so.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Isnt it obvious???
I am actually shocked you had to ask.
 
You think that simplistic analysis which takes ZERO look at actual content is relevant to deciding bias? Seriously?? 
 
Good grief. But at least we know now that you believe Fox News when they say they are not biased.. I mean they talk about Obama LOTS..... FFS

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568604" data-time="1459390793">
Isnt it obvious??? 
I am actually shocked you had to ask. 
 
You think that simplistic analysis which takes ZERO look at actual content is relevant to deciding bias? Seriously?? 
 
Good grief. But at least we know now that you believe Fox News when they say they are not biased.. I mean they talk about Obama LOTS..... FFS
</blockquote>
 So you didn't read the entire article, specifically when it says it's testing for time spent on a particular side of politics disproportionately; 'we can check if the ABC gives significantly more time to one side of politics during elections', nor <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf'>this which it linked to</a>?

The Silver Fern

Brussels Bombing