A question about US News coverage
Everyone knows Fox News is jaded towards a right-wing stance. but the little i've seen of American news is always biased to either a left-wing or right-wing position.
Is there any major news source in the states that totally isn't jaded one way or the other? We have the same deal over here (and everywhere else) but it's never ever as blatant as in the states (apart from in the tabloids)
The reason I ask is because I hate being told what I should think, I just want facts, I don't want an anchor spouting rhetoric at me. it all just seems a bit...sinister
Is there any major news source in the states that totally isn't jaded one way or the other? We have the same deal over here (and everywhere else) but it's never ever as blatant as in the states (apart from in the tabloids)
The reason I ask is because I hate being told what I should think, I just want facts, I don't want an anchor spouting rhetoric at me. it all just seems a bit...sinister
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I won't say they're always neutral or correct, but they are independent, know their stuff and show you things you won't often get in regular media. And with pretty good production values.
They recently started some sort of makeover to the show, but I haven't watched in the last month or so, so I am not sure what is different.
In general, though, there's very few non-partisan broadcasters. Even outside of politics, there's just way too much money to be made by being sensational. This is why, in all the fervour about Michael Jackson being dead or Angelina Jolie being pregnant, there's just no room to broadcast about important things, like this poor woman**, or the passing of Norman Borlaug.
I tend to read and watch everything to get a general objectivity about what's going on***. Actually - this is weird - but Jon Stewart is pretty much the only non-partisan newscaster in the West right now. I mean, sure, he pretends it's all comedy, but you do also get the news, plain and without any dressing.
*I should say "I hope he pretends to have." That man scares me. I refuse to believe that someone could actually be that delusional.
**Story may induce rage. You've been warned.
***Though Fox do seem more of a comedy channel at times; that was my first impression of them, by the way: that they were a comedy channel. For those first five minutes, Ann Coulter was my favorite comedian ever. Then, realization hit.
Sounds like the Giant Bomb of news organizations.
Let's hope it's a bit better than Hannity & Colmes, that man does nothing for the left-wing agenda god help him
Yeah I hear you there, I lean to the left somewhat, but I still hate it when I see for example some crazed shooter and the left-wing channel's blaming it on gun control and the right-wing are blaming it on the media (games, music, microwave meals, whatever) it's just not the news's place to do that outside of pundits that can say whatever they like as far as i'm concerned as long as they have some opposition from time to time
The Murdoch machine's a funny old beast, for all it's right-wing tendancies it just wants to make money at the end of the day (and fair enough I say) that's why you see it publishing books by Michael Moore (if you can't say anything nice...) ad taking different stances in different locations. In the UK it's slightly tilted to the right with The Sun and The Times (which is actually my paper of choice, you just have to be wary because it can be quite subtle while being somewhat biased) there's Sky News as well but I never watch it.
Completely agreed.
I dunno, the BBC gets it from all sides. One time I was at a lecture being given by the sanctimonious Scottish midget known as George Galloway who "hilariously" reffered to it as the "Bush and Blair Corporation." Turned on BBC that night and there was extensive coverage that questioned the Iraq war.
They seem to be a victim of their own high standards, not perfect but pretty damn good most of the time I think
Well I don't want to get into a lot of politics on here, but there have been times when the BBC has been accused of having a political agenda. I have seen it myself too. I don't think they are as bad as they used to be though, I think they cleaned up their act a lot.
Maybe moreso in the past but as far as i've witnessed theyve been pretty neutral, I can't really think of a time I watched a report and thought "Hang on a second..." they get grief from MP's all the time but that hardly means anything as MP's will complain about anything in Britain.
Seriously though, i'd really like an example of BBC making a muck of things if you can think of any, it'd be interesting
I think there's way too much anti-government anti-party paranoia on every side. I'm personally an independent, though I tend to lean to the right. Sure there ARE politicians who lie through their face and talk out their arse at the same time. But I tend to see Republicans label the Liberals as the evil biased homo satanist Libs and the Liberals label the Repubs as the evil fundamentalist religious conspiracy theorist nutcases. Neither party is really that bad! There is so much fighting coming from both sides because human beings hate other human beings, especially ones that disagree with them. Anybody who stereotypes either party as such has no clue what they are saying and have let the media tell them what to believe for way too long.
I hate to say it, but this sounds a little bit pompous. CNN is a highly respected international news organization and is the first 24 hour news network. I'm sorry our colonial news doesn't fit to the stiff up lip British sensibilities. I guess it should be left to the unwashed masses :P
I have to say, when i visited the US during Michael Jacksons trial (i was in disney world =P) the coverage was all "poor MJ!", whereas over here they seemed alot more neutral. Mainly facts, and reconstructed testimonies (i.e some middle aged man reading out some kids testimony). I have no idea which network we had to watch in the US (definately either Fox or CNN, but i have a sneaky suspician it was both), but it was definately different.
For a start it goes against every professional ethic of journalism, and sometimes it's hard to even notice. For example The Independent is a left-wing British broadsheet, it's not unusal to see every paper running a story on a big world event on their front-page while they run an article about plastic bag use or something on there's. It's certainly a big issue and i'm not trying to take any legitimacy away from it, but it's selective and subtle, keep getting your news from the same source and it does effect your opinion
Two words "Action News" :mad:
Wut? ITN's a joke (especially of late), it's tabloid journalism full of emotional language and showbiz stories, even good ol' Trevor McDonald couldn't hide that under his layers of class. Personally Channel 4's news is probably the best, even if it is far too agressive at times
Jacko's death was a pretty legitimate news story in my opinion, it had it all. It was unexpected, the man was absolutely massive, there was/is a hint of sinisterness and people running to grab the mans wealth. It was like Elvis's death to my generation. I don't think the BBC website's too bad for sensationalism outside of its entertainment section
I'm not sure about that. It may well be the other way around. I'm interested in the environment and human rights issues and what not, and find myself gravitating towards The Guardian, simply because they talk about the stuff I'm interested in. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but I think the consumer is the chicken, and the newspaper is the egg.
(That said, I still look at other newspapers as well - all online, of course, actual paper just gives a lot of mess.)
True, if you're aware of bias in the media you'll more than likely go with the biased paper you agree with (though I read The Times because I like their writing style best, despite me being a smidge to the left.) But do you evere find yourself reading a story from one-side and thinking "yeah definitely, makes sense" then reading it from the other and going "...hang on, this makes sense as well!" Maybe i'm just easier effected than others....hence why I hate the bias
On topic, I've heard (but have not actually read them myself) that the English version of Al Jazeera is actually pretty good. I usually just read The Economist.
________
Dodge Charger (1999 concept) history
Well, each to his own, I suppose. But I don't have the same problems with CNN as I do with the likes of Fox - two completely different takes on reporting - though it still manages to miss the mark for me in how they report. And since I'm British, its an effort not to be pompous. Got to keep up the stereotypes, old boy, what!
By ITN, I was referring more to Channel 4's rather than ITV's - they're run by the same company. I strongly detest ITV's news; as you say, its the TV equivalent of tabloid. Channel 4's is generally of a decent quality, bar a few flaws, and makes a reasonable alternative to going to BBC.
They do have a tendency to overdo it though. Jackson's death was dragged out a bit too long, to the stage of "who cares! That was two weeks ago, something else more important must have happened!" The problem is they tend to overdo it on non-entities too. Jade Goody's death for instance. I doubt the Yanks have even heard of her, she was an absolute nobody who's only claim to fame is being on a reality TV show. The British media went into a frenzy about it for weeks.
Aye, its not bad. They've got David Frost nowadays, the same David Frost who interviewed Nixon. Shame he looks like he needs poking every now and then to make sure he hasn't died when the camera switched off him for a few moments.
All that stuff gets a thumbs up (particularly Jade Goody but I don't even wanna get into that) I didn't even think of ITN outside of ITV, they do Channel Five's "news" and all
________
extreme q vaporizer
It's always open to interpretation though if they're biased or not, a good few people have definitely accused them of taking sides