Jim Thorpe
Hello!Instead of hijacking balilife's thread, I thought I would post here. Balilife said that he disagreed with me when I posted the link that explained the BBC's findings with respect to internal bias. I am not sure what he disagrees with me about since I posted no comments or editorials. I have seen posted on here the level of respect for the BBC that I find extraordinary. I am genuinely interested in what supporters of the BBC think of it's own survey, which recognizes the bias and suggests ways to overcome the bias. Will fans recognize what the BBC itself has discovered or will they ignore the findings? Do you agree with findings?Just curious....
Tony
"... facts have a well known liberal bias..." - Stephen Colbert/2006 WH Correspondents DinnerThis subject seems to be a reoccurring theme for you JT. My favorite writer, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, said many years ago that truly objective journalism is a myth. Everyone has a point of view from the start. Some are able to report the facts in a relatively objective way while managing to avoid to some degree filtering what they write/report thru the prism of their own point of view.Today's new batch of journalists seem to have abandoned any attempts at all towards objectivity and straight reportage, some even going as far as to offer unabashed opinion as "hard news". Even worse... many journalists simply rephrase press releases issued by less than disinterested parties and then peddle it as news. There is simply no such thing as truly unbiased reportage today, if ever it existed in the first place. The BBC, in my humble opinion, tends to a little more straight and even-handed than most broadcast or print media at the moment. Is it free from bias or point of view overall? Certainly not.I find it more and more difficult these days to find any definitive facts in virtually any news source available today. I now find myself wading thru lots of pointed material from both sides and then sifting thru it all to find a reasonable conclusion drawn from several points of view. The truth today, it seems, is somewhere in the middle.
Jim Thorpe
Thanks Tony for replying. Yes, I find this theme interesting and it does reoccur in my posts. I agree with what you write other than the fact that I don't believe the BBC is less bias...but it certainly depends on what the subject is...I am also thinking about my own beliefs and how long I will hold on to some of them, even in the face of facts "proving" that my beliefs are incorrect. So in this case, how long will someone defend the BBC and claim it is unbiased when even the BBC itself says it is biased?Again, thanks for replying...
Jim Thorpe
Tony,I thought this tribute to Hunter S. was very funny, see if you like it too....[url="http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/02/fear_and_loathi_1.html"]http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/20 ... thi_1.html[/url]
tintin
Amen Tony,I appreciate your concise opinion on journalists and on the media in general. In my experience, however, I find that things haven't changed much from the "old days," the only difference being that nowadays the means of communication, which have literarily exploded over the last 10-15 years, have resulted in a daily tsunami of information. Shifting through all this formation, most of it garbage, is indeed a difficult and time-consuming task. Added to this is the prevailing characteristic of our "modern" society: mediocrity which passes for excellence.As a very small example of this "mediocrity", I recently corresponded briefly with a journalist at the [i]Corriere Della Sera[/i], who had reported rather erroneously on Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's health. When I confronted him with some obvious circumstances and facts, his only answer was "I just reports what's on the wire."Of course, BBC has its own biases, but what I find remarkable and fascinating about BBC is that although a state-owned but independent corporation, it still tackles and criticizes its own "bosses," the British Government, biting the hand that feeds it, and not on trivial, inconsequential matters. I contrast the BBC's attitude with that of the boot-licking of the several French Government owned TV broadcasting chains, or of the "presstitutes" which overwhelm the US media.
Tony
Discussing bias is the worldwide press is indeed an interesting subject, though admittedly, having very little to do with Bali. One of the things that impresses me most when I am visiting Bali, or anywhere beyond the shores of my home country, is how different news coverage is. Here at home, news reports covering issues like the middle east turmoil is quite sanitized in terms of graphic imagery broadcast or printed, in terms of perspective relating to the parties involved, etc. News broadcasts on television at home seem like public relations efforts compared to what I see broadcast when travelling abroad.Media in our country, by and large, is controlled by large corporate interests. These corporate interests have one specific goal in mind... money. It has been well documented that most of the news departments at the major networks have fallen under the control of the "entertainment" divisions within these corporate giants. Budgets for investigative reporting have been slashed in recent years. Instead of coverage of the leading global issues of the day, we get wall to wall Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, Brangelina, etc. Even the faces on the 6 O'Clock news broadcasts have switched from respectable and informed talking heads (remember guys like Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid?) to cute, perky, blondes. Forgive me for overgeneralizing a bit here, but I think you will understand my drift. The goal in no longer to inform the citizenry via a free press... the goal is entertain & generate ratings, which in turn allows increased revenue via increased fees for those 30 sec. advertising spots. This is indeed an inherent bias... but it has little to do with right vs. left. That is simply a smokescreen. Bad news or too much informative detail would seem to bore todays average consumer of news and information, causing them to change the channel, resulting in a loss of ratings, thus resulting in a loss of revenue.Outside or our country, much of the media is government owned and/or controlled. Those that controll these forms of media, again, have their own goals, biases and points of view and this, in turn, colors the flavor of their respective reportage.If you want to debate the bias of the BBC, I suppose I would need to know exactly what measuring stick you are applying to come to this conclusion. Is the BBC as biased as, say, Fux Noise? I would rabidly argue in this comparison that the BBC is far more "fair and balanced". There is a very interesting argument that has begun here in the USA during the last couple of days... the issue of access to media. The debate centers around talk radio following Sen. Trent Lott's statements last week that "talk radio is driving the nation..." Conservative/Right Leaning proponents claim that the market forces favor conservative talk radio because it generates more revenue and has a larger audience, thus it is more profitable. Progressive talk proponents (namely Ed Schultz) claim the issue is access, or lack thereof, to audiences due to being shut out in most markets by large media corporations that own hundreds of stations under a single corporate banner. Schultz claims (and ratings & revenue reports confirm) that his program beats the ratings of conservative hosts in several markets hands down, yet he cannot find more broadcast corporations willing to air his program.The claim by some that US media is dominated by the "hollywood leftist elite" is patently false. CNN, NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS and most certainly FUX has, during the last 6 years taken a decidedly right turn in both the coverage and op-ed editorializing. Certainly, this shift has been driven largely by market forces given the spectacular rise of FUX Noise and the ratings they have generated. The bias exists and probably always has... Does it spring from political or idealogical concerns? Certainly, to some degree. At least here in the US, I would argue that it stems more from a cash generating view far more than any ideology based point of view.
BaliLife
the only establishments i'd imagine might dare suggest bbc liberal bias (or originate such a suggestion), would be a right wing media org owned by none other than my fellow maggot australian, rupert murdoch.. but this isn't a political forum..
Jim Thorpe
Balilife,One of the reasons I moved it to this forum is that it is the political part of the board...Bert made it specially for that. We're not allowed to call names though :-).I was not trying to pull chains nore get anything started here other than a polite discussion on something I am interested about and others may be also.The BBC is a well respected institution worldwide that many westerners use it as their major source of news regarding their home countries. When the BBC own survey and research show that they have a profound bias then I find it news worthy and for consideration. The commission wasn't a witchhunt..."The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors. It has been approved by a committee headed by BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief Richard Tait. Other members include BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford, head of BBC News Helen Boaden and creative director Alan Yentob."In my humble opinion, this shows what I was interested in....That if a media outlet or report shows something to be different than your (or my) belief, we will either ignore it or slag it. In this case you did both. I may have done the same if it disagreed with my beliefs. So how do we or others negotiate or educate when the other side won't accept any information?
BaliLife
the fact that bbc can issue such a report on itself, is in further support of its standing as having the most integrity amongst all international news sources.. in a world where conserative media bias rules (cnn, nbc, fox and all other US propoganda), a little liberal bias isn't too bad in my books... besides, when the majority of news agencies are so blatantly biased to the right, anything nuetral like the bbc would likely appear liberally biased.. go watch hard talk when they're grilling both sides, right and left and then tell me bbc is biased for to the left..ct
Jim Thorpe
Balilife,I agree that there is room for admiration that the BBC has taken upon itself to do a review....There was some pressure to do so and the critics turned out to be right: that the BBC has bias. I don't think the majority of the world would agree that CNN is right leaning, hence the rise of Fox news... In the past, the political discussions we have had on bali forums have often been yelling past each other while ignoring what was actually being said. WE, myself included, would say that the other side used biased facts while the side I would be defending was non-biased. Here was the perfect example of defending what may be the indefensible. It is hard to continue to say something is non-biased when they themselves say they are! :-) I have always assume that you and the people on this forum are intelligent, reasonable, open minded people. So when I see some rationalizing like this I have to wonder if I am also doing this with my news resources. If you aren't questioning your belief in the BBC, not to say that you won't continue to believe it, BUT if you don't at least examine it, then why are we even using these resources other than to justify our current beliefs? Thanks for this discussion...
Tony
All media is biased to some degree. The question is really how much and the motivations lying behind the bias. What's your point?It seems to me that it has been primarily noise from the right calling the media biased & left-leaning. I'd have to say from my carefull and constant observations that this is patently false. What gets decried as left wing bias tends to be reportage that generally contradicts or challenges propaganda, wishfull-thinking, whatever you want to call it from the right. Because a broadcast or print story centers around the theory of evolution, does that give it an automatic leftist slant? Because news stories from the middle east focus on the devastation & loss of life & political clusterf@%k rather than "march of democracy" around the world, is that reportage automatically leftist? You're, again, beginning to sound like Hannity, digging in your heels to rabidly defend a non-issue. There's plenty of rightwing noise out there to feed your need for "balance". You don't like the BBC... turn it off, right letters to the news division, start your own program, paper, blogsite. I don't use these resources to justify anything. My current beliefs exist outside of the media. Oddly enough, the shrill screeching from the right side of the bias line has inadvertently confirmed and justified them for me.
