Besides, however you voted, it's pretty obvious from your posts and continual defence of the particular media platform we are discussing, where your political or ideological sympathies lie.
I sometimes wonder whether you are playing a bit of a game in that by and large most posters are liberal or leftward leaning on these boards. 'Let's get a rise out of these trendy lefties by continually citing GB News or figures like Rees Mogg.'
There's room for a laugh aboard Ship most certainly, even on serious subjects or here in Purgatory but I can't help but get the impression that you're becoming a bit of a wind-up merchant.
As someone's said before, your contributions to the Bad Jokes thread can be outstanding. Your contribution to serious discussion elsewhere, not so much.
Which is a shame as I'm sure you have plenty of good points to make.
Also attempting to diagnose another poster’s politics or motives for posting is not a contribution to a discussion about Neutrality in News Outlets. Additionally, it risks shading into Commandment 3 territory and Purgatory Guidelines 1 and 4.
Rant alert
… I think that the BBC at the moment abuses its claim to be openhanded and conveys a number of unobjective biases.
It has always amused me that the left accuse the BBC of Tory bias, and Tories accuse them of left wing bias. They must be striking a balance.
C. It has got far too habituated into believing that it itself is newsworthy. Too many of its headlines are news about itself. That is treating the national news as a little better than a staff magazine. On one occasion I actually got as far as complaining formally. A third of the C4 lunchtime news was devoted to some row about how male or female reporters were rewarded. Yes that might have been minor interest, but unless a person works for the BBC, it was of no general significance.
This is true, and all media outlets are guilty of this. It seems that people who work in the media are genuinely unaware that the general public really aren’t interested in what goes on inside their bubble.
Rant alert
… I think that the BBC at the moment abuses its claim to be openhanded and conveys a number of unobjective biases.
It has always amused me that the left accuse the BBC of Tory bias, and Tories accuse them of left wing bias. They must be striking a balance.
That sounds profound but isn't necessarily true is it. For a start that depends on what they are complaining about and secondly it depends on the substance of their particular complaints.
It has always amused me that the left accuse the BBC of Tory bias, and Tories accuse them of left wing bias. They must be striking a balance.
This is a logical fallacy. Admittedly a very common one.
It would be true to say that the accusations from both sides mean they may be striking a balance.
An alternative explanation is that both sides perceive bias. Another one is that one or both sides may not be acting in good faith.
Let's explore this one for a moment. I will pose you a hypothetical: Would a constant complaint of bias pressure the BBC to be extra careful to lean a certain way? How about if the party in government (who can affect both the budget and the appointment of executive staff) makes such comments? How about if a large section of the media is constantly running the same line?
One has to conclude that it is at least possible that the complaint of bias from one side is not a fair charge but is a tactic to promote positive coverage for their side.
So how do we resolve this, which hypothesis is more likely to be true? Well, there is some empirical evidence.
Rant alert
… I think that the BBC at the moment abuses its claim to be openhanded and conveys a number of unobjective biases.
It has always amused me that the left accuse the BBC of Tory bias, and Tories accuse them of left wing bias. They must be striking a balance.
Nah, the BBC just leans socially liberal and economically right wing. When the left talk about bias they are talking about economics, when the right talk about bias they are saying the BBC has too many brown people on screen.
Although I have harped on about the news items on GB News being unbiased, I do accept that the actual programmes are right leaning. They are NOT far right.
So - to steer us away from this right/left debate - what do we think of this? It's relevant because the BBC news editors chose to give prominence to this story rather than others.
So - to steer us away from this right/left debate - what do we think of this? It's relevant because the BBC news editors chose to give prominence to this story rather than others.
Well, I think Mr Buerk is right, although his choice of phrasing could have been a little gentler.
Mr Payne's death by falling from a hotel balcony whilst under the influence of a cocktail of drugs is a personal tragedy for his friends and family. It's sad for people who are fans of his work. Given Mr Payne's celebrity, his death is worth mentioning in the national news. The fact that his death seems to have been caused by drugged-up stupidity is worth describing in the hope that it emphasizes the dangers of getting sufficiently jacked up on whatever that you lose control of yourself.
But it's worth maybe a minute, at the end of a news bulletin. It's not worth treating as a major headline.
Some will doubtless call this a victory for "neutrality in news outlets". Others will call it obeying in advance. On the other hand it's a little deceptive to say that the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post made these decisions. Both papers had drafted endorsements of Kamala Harris and were ordered not to publish them by their billionaire owners, Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos respectively. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally it was later revealed that the same day Bezos decided to yank the Post's endorsement of Harris, Donald Trump had met with executives of Blue Origin, Bezos' space company.
BBC Radio 4 Today is the Beeb's flagship news program.
They reported this morning the Daily Mail's editorial condemning today's budget.
They've been this way for ages. Post Gilligan they've been wary of avoiding the papers, which inevitably means that unless they have another story to break 'What the papers say' dominates a news cycle. Even if they take a contrary line it skews coverage.
BBC Radio 4 Today is the Beeb's flagship news program.
They reported this morning the Daily Mail's editorial condemning today's budget.
They've been this way for ages. Post Gilligan they've been wary of avoiding the papers, which inevitably means that unless they have another story to break 'What the papers say' dominates a news cycle. Even if they take a contrary line it skews coverage.
It does seem strange given the fall in circulation of the papers that they have such an influence in shaping our discourse
Are their online readership similarly low or are they showing them as they may have a large online readership? I am ignorant here as I consume very little news apart from local news (others tend to tell me what's going on).
Are their online readership similarly low or are they showing them as they may have a large online readership?
Their online domestic audiences are similarly low - partly because of paywalls. The international online audience is larger for some papers, more so in the case of the Guardian and Mail less so in the case of the FT.
I think the coverage is more reflective of the power of lobby and access journalism, and the fact that the UK national media is drawn from a very small pool of people with lots of personal connections.
BBC Radio 4 Today is the Beeb's flagship news program.
They reported this morning the Daily Mail's editorial condemning today's budget.
They've been this way for ages. Post Gilligan they've been wary of avoiding the papers, which inevitably means that unless they have another story to break 'What the papers say' dominates a news cycle. Even if they take a contrary line it skews coverage.
Indeed but I wanted to highlight this egregious example. The Mail criticising a budget they haven't even seen yet being presented as News... beyond ridiculous.
Comments
Why do you assume that I voted Conservative or Reform. I voted but not for them. If you want to play I will give you 3 guesses as to who I voted for
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I sometimes wonder whether you are playing a bit of a game in that by and large most posters are liberal or leftward leaning on these boards. 'Let's get a rise out of these trendy lefties by continually citing GB News or figures like Rees Mogg.'
There's room for a laugh aboard Ship most certainly, even on serious subjects or here in Purgatory but I can't help but get the impression that you're becoming a bit of a wind-up merchant.
As someone's said before, your contributions to the Bad Jokes thread can be outstanding. Your contribution to serious discussion elsewhere, not so much.
Which is a shame as I'm sure you have plenty of good points to make.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I will try to 'Ofcom' myself and practice what I've preached by sticking to the rules and guidelines.
It's an interesting point, isn't it.
You have received a warning and modified your behaviour. Posters who do not do so face sanctions.
Maybe Ofcom should follow The Hosts example...?
This is true, and all media outlets are guilty of this. It seems that people who work in the media are genuinely unaware that the general public really aren’t interested in what goes on inside their bubble.
That sounds profound but isn't necessarily true is it. For a start that depends on what they are complaining about and secondly it depends on the substance of their particular complaints.
This is a logical fallacy. Admittedly a very common one.
It would be true to say that the accusations from both sides mean they may be striking a balance.
An alternative explanation is that both sides perceive bias. Another one is that one or both sides may not be acting in good faith.
Let's explore this one for a moment. I will pose you a hypothetical: Would a constant complaint of bias pressure the BBC to be extra careful to lean a certain way? How about if the party in government (who can affect both the budget and the appointment of executive staff) makes such comments? How about if a large section of the media is constantly running the same line?
One has to conclude that it is at least possible that the complaint of bias from one side is not a fair charge but is a tactic to promote positive coverage for their side.
So how do we resolve this, which hypothesis is more likely to be true? Well, there is some empirical evidence.
This is one such proper study - This is over ten years old but there are quite a few of these.
AFZ
Nah, the BBC just leans socially liberal and economically right wing. When the left talk about bias they are talking about economics, when the right talk about bias they are saying the BBC has too many brown people on screen.
https://tinyurl.com/y3ew2a3r
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/washington-post-major-us-newspaper-decline-endorse-presidential-115159463
Well, I think Mr Buerk is right, although his choice of phrasing could have been a little gentler.
Mr Payne's death by falling from a hotel balcony whilst under the influence of a cocktail of drugs is a personal tragedy for his friends and family. It's sad for people who are fans of his work. Given Mr Payne's celebrity, his death is worth mentioning in the national news. The fact that his death seems to have been caused by drugged-up stupidity is worth describing in the hope that it emphasizes the dangers of getting sufficiently jacked up on whatever that you lose control of yourself.
But it's worth maybe a minute, at the end of a news bulletin. It's not worth treating as a major headline.
Some will doubtless call this a victory for "neutrality in news outlets". Others will call it obeying in advance. On the other hand it's a little deceptive to say that the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post made these decisions. Both papers had drafted endorsements of Kamala Harris and were ordered not to publish them by their billionaire owners, Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos respectively. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally it was later revealed that the same day Bezos decided to yank the Post's endorsement of Harris, Donald Trump had met with executives of Blue Origin, Bezos' space company.
They reported this morning the Daily Mail's editorial condemning today's budget.
I mean, seriously...
They've been this way for ages. Post Gilligan they've been wary of avoiding the papers, which inevitably means that unless they have another story to break 'What the papers say' dominates a news cycle. Even if they take a contrary line it skews coverage.
It does seem strange given the fall in circulation of the papers that they have such an influence in shaping our discourse
Their online domestic audiences are similarly low - partly because of paywalls. The international online audience is larger for some papers, more so in the case of the Guardian and Mail less so in the case of the FT.
I think the coverage is more reflective of the power of lobby and access journalism, and the fact that the UK national media is drawn from a very small pool of people with lots of personal connections.
Indeed but I wanted to highlight this egregious example. The Mail criticising a budget they haven't even seen yet being presented as News... beyond ridiculous.