Brussels Bombing

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>?

Rancid Schnitzel

What does that even mean? Is it allowing people from the different parties to put their views across? Or is it reporting on the different parties? At any rate it's a pretty farking piss poor yardstick for determining whether or not there is bias.

jegga

Donsteppas right when he says the blogs in NZ whine about media bias when it's a story of one of their side doing something they'd prefer not to be in the public eye . I think outside of columnists our print media is pretty neutral , tv and radio far less so . Henry and Hosking are pretty obviously on the right and people like Hillary Barry and Campbell are obviously leftards . The few times I've listened to radio NZ it seemed to have a left bias , I'm pretty sure I'm not radio nzs target market and I haven't listened to it much though. 
I'm stoked Campbell is off the tv now, stuff like his interviews with Len Brown and Key over the gcsb not to mention ambushing Clark over corn gate were pretty disgraceful and he had two more complaints upheld even after he went off the air.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568619" data-time="1459394368">
<div>
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>?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Yes... and the info is still just as completely and utterly pointless. Just talking about a side means NOTHING when it comes to content bias. As I said Obama go more air time on Fox last election than his rival. His 'side' got LOTS of coverage. Going by that 'research' Fox has a pro Obama bias.
 
So is Fox biased or not?

NTA

The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased? 
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result. 
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway. 
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy...

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="568628" data-time="1459397238">
<div>
The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased? 
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result. 
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway. 
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568626" data-time="1459396502">
<div>
Yes... and the info is still just as completely and utterly pointless. Just talking about a side means NOTHING when it comes to content bias. As I said Obama go more air time on Fox last election than his rival. His 'side' got LOTS of coverage. Going by that 'research' Fox has a pro Obama bias.
 
So is Fox biased or not? 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I refer you to my <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-5#entry568619'>previous post</a> which you seem to have quoted yet not understood. It's difficult to explain this more clearly; that particular test was whether they gave 'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections', not whether the time spent on either side was biased.

The Silver Fern

Brussels Bombing