Pew Survey: US media bias ranks worst in the world

[bhsmte]

And unsurprisingly, a lie not noticed by the OP

It was a comfortable lie.

 

[NightHawkeye]

With Trump constantly denigrating the media in the USA, is it any wonder? Literally anything Trump doesn't like is labelled "fake news", and we get an alternate reality from the White House. That alternate reality is then relayed as the truth by Fox News, it's a very interesting dynamic. For example, the size of the crowds at Trump's inauguration.

What I find most interesting is how so many make pretense claims to being fair, impartial and open to diverse viewpoints ... yet outright reject anything which upsets their narrow-minded view of the world.

Kinda weird ...

 

[Gadarene]

What I find most interesting is how so many make pretense claims to being fair, impartial and open to diverse viewpoints ... yet outright reject anything which upsets their narrow-minded view of the world.

Kinda weird ...

A statement which applies just as much to the Everything-I-Don’t-Like-Is-Fake-News brigade.

Again, your quest for some kind of perfect objective side will only yield more bias.

 

[NightHawkeye]

A statement which applies just as much to the Everything-I-Don’t-Like-Is-Fake-News brigade.

Again, your quest for some kind of perfect objective side will only yield more bias.

I never said news sources should be unbiased. Those claims were made by the media. For most of my lifetime the mainstream media in this country has outright denied its own bias. Only recently have they been seriously challenged on the matter. At first the mainstream journalists claimed that those offering other perspectives simply were not serious or professional journalists. Next, they claimed that the new upstarts were biased. Then they claimed those whipper-snappers were Fake News ...

... and now karma has come back around and squarely placed that designation upon the very people who created the Fake News moniker in the first place. One has to marvel at the poetic justice of it all.

 

[Gadarene]

I never said news sources should be unbiased. Those claims were made by the media.

What, all of it? Don’t use the term “the media”, it’s an utterly meaningless generalisation.

For most of my lifetime the mainstream media in this country has outright denied its own bias.

Er, as does pretty much any reporting source, blogs and new media included.

Which of them say or have ever said “actually this is just ideologically scented tripe to pander to our readership lol”?

Why are you holding “The Media (tm)” to a different standard to what you are claiming is better, more objective news?

Only recently have they been seriously challenged on the matter. At first the mainstream journalists claimed that those offering other perspectives simply were serious or professional journalists. Next, they claimed that the new upstarts were biased.

And they’re not wrong, because no source is unbiased. The point is for the sources to challenge each other, but equally, not all opinions are created equal, a fact people seem increasingly inclined to ignore.

Then they claimed those whipper-snappers were Fake News ...

And Trump claimed it right back, as has the new media propping him up. Oh but that’s “poetic justice”, not “pulling the exact subjective bias that I’m complaining about in mainstream media”

Again, why do you hold them to a different standard? You want them to replace “The Media (tm)”, they at least should be holding to the same standards.

 

[bhsmte]

What I find most interesting is how so many make pretense claims to being fair, impartial and open to diverse viewpoints ... yet outright reject anything which upsets their narrow-minded view of the world.

Kinda weird ...

Massive projection here, but to be expected.

 

[Think like Christ]

What I find most interesting is how so many make pretense claims to being fair, impartial and open to diverse viewpoints ... yet outright reject anything which upsets their narrow-minded view of the world.

Kinda weird ...

Yes, this does seem to be very common.

I think Americans are particularly susceptible to this as so many seem to rely almost solely on the American media, often the most biased such as FOX News or MSNBC, or revert to unreliable internet sources, rather than use reliable and reputable international sources such as the BBC, Fraser Institute, The Guardian, Der Spiegel International.

Of course I'm not saying any of those sources are perfect, everyone and every organization makes mistakes, but they will all immediately offer a retraction if discover they have made a mistake, an important quality of a reliable source.

 

[Gadarene]

If the goal isn’t objectivity but “well, ‘The Media (tm)’ isn’t objective so I can basically believe whatever garbage I like”, that’s not really an improvement.

The new media types also tend to disdain expertise, which, like it or not, the more established sources tend to have in their reporting teams.

 

[Gadarene]

Reminds me of the people who go around saying “Oh well science doesn’t know everything, you know”

Obviously not. That doesn’t mean all opinions have become magically equal like it’s kindergarten and everyone is a winner and you can start proclaiming whatever gibberish you feel like.

 

[Rion]

Reminds me of the people who go around saying “Oh well science doesn’t know everything, you know”

Obviously not. That doesn’t mean all opinions have become magically equal like it’s kindergarten and everyone is a winner and you can start proclaiming whatever gibberish you feel like.

Works for BBC.

 

[Gadarene]

Works for BBC.

No such thing as an unbiased source, like I said, but let’s hold all media to that standard, not just the ones Dear Leader says are bad.

Again, not sure why we expect news sources to go “actually this is all bollocks, we made it up for the lulz”

Going to put it in a slightly different category to e.g. Breitbart on track record and expertise levels alone, mind.

Both the right and the left complain the BBC is biased against them, which probably means it’s doing something right. No fear of that with Breitbart!

 

[Rion]

No such thing as an unbiased source, like I said, but let’s hold all media to that standard, not just the ones Dear Leader says are bad.

Again, not sure why we expect news sources to go “actually this is all bollocks, we made it up for the lulz”

Oh, I agree. I just find the BBC highly amusing since they're known to go door to door to people who stop paying for their crappy services, and inspecting to make sure people really aren't watching their junk.

 

[Gadarene]

Oh, I agree. I just find the BBC highly amusing since they're known to go door to door to people who stop paying for their crappy services, and inspecting to make sure people really aren't watching their junk.

“Stop paying for their crappy services while still availing themselves of them”, I think you mean (I’ll give you the ‘crappy’ rather than fixing it for you, but jealousy doesn’t become you m8 )

No-one has to pay the license fee. You do if you are using the service.

 

[Rion]

“Stop paying for their crappy services while still availing themselves of them”, I think you mean (I’ll give you the ‘crappy’ rather than fixing it for you, but jealousy doesn’t become you m8 )

No-one has to pay the license fee. You do if you are using the service.

What would I be jealous of? BBC of today isn't anything near the quality of BBC of yesteryear.

 

[Gadarene]

What would I be jealous of? BBC of today isn't anything near the quality of BBC of yesteryear.

I’m going to blame this one entirely on Whovians *shudder*

 

[NightHawkeye]

Oh, I agree. I just find the BBC highly amusing since they're known to go door to door to people who stop paying for their crappy services, and inspecting to make sure people really aren't watching their junk.

Yeah, I was really surprised to learn years ago that they went around with an RF "sniffing" truck to see who had TV on which channel. It was completely different from the US when TV stations still wanted to have viewers. That was back when TV was still completely free in this country, before cable TV became a big thing. Back then, all the broadcast stations were delighted to increase their viewership as they could then increase the price of their commercials. Now, those same stations here expect viewers to pay for watching their commercial laden channels. (I don't.)

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, I was really surprised to learn years ago that they went around with an RF "sniffing" truck to see who had TV on which channel. It was completely different from the US when TV stations still wanted to have viewers. That was back when TV was still completely free in this country, before cable TV became a big thing. Back then, all the broadcast stations were delighted to increase their viewership as they could then increase the price of their commercials. Now, those same stations here expect viewers to pay for watching their commercial laden channels.

Yeah, again, don’t think y’all are grasping they are checking to make sure that people are watching their services without paying for them.

Free cable hookups were illegal in the US, weren’t they?

 

[Rion]

Yeah, again, don’t think y’all are grasping they are checking to make sure that people are watching their services without paying for them.

Free cable hookups were illegal in the US, weren’t they?

We have NPR and PBS, but it's not illegal to watch them if you don't pay taxes.

 

[Gadarene]

We have NPR and PBS, but it's not illegal to watch them if you don't pay taxes.

Ok, and that’s how their system works.

I’m not seeing a point here.

(Kinda staggered I have to defend the idea of people paying for a service, public or otherwise, to people who tend to complain when that doesn’t happen in the US but k)

 

[Rion]

I’m going to blame this one entirely on Whovians *shudder*

Don't they have some kind of diversity group which looks over everything that's written before it is aired, to ensure it doesn't offend people?