Do we really want neutral news?

I usually wind up going to the BBC for news on events in America for the outside perspective and filtering out local celebrity bullshit. Our news outlets, whether or not you agree with or appreciate their bias, clog their lines with pointless garbage while all the important stuff is what gets passed quietly through the legislature under that smokescreen.

Frankly, I'm not even sure how much I care about news being neutral — right now I'd appreciate if it could at least bother being relevant.

edited 19th Apr '12 3:39:59 PM by Pykrete

Thats what I was trying to say, but I couldn't figure out how to process that thought into words.

True. I hate the amount of attention celebrities get when they'res a cyclone hitting india, a civil war on, ect.

actually I hate the amount of attention they get at all.

I can see a certain amount of purpose for having a few stories about their political activism or something. I mean, imagine my surprise when Ashton Kutcher of all people wound up being a mildly experienced entrepreneur who put together one of the more eloquent statements against SOPA on behalf of startup companies. And heaven knows what little they show that isn't celebrity stuff is depressing as hell, so it'd be nice to see celebrity charity events or something.

But no, it's never any of that stuff. Just gossip rag trash.

edited 19th Apr '12 4:15:23 PM by Pykrete

I disagree. While commentary is important, when I read a news report I expect them to report just the facts, what actually happened, what is known and what is not, etc. If I want commentary, I'll read the comments section, and then make up my own mind. Commentary should not be reported as a "fact".

edited 19th Apr '12 4:34:21 PM by IraTheSquire

Most people don't want their worldview challenged and act very hostile when you do. Thus, they seek out news that reinforces their worldview, wrong or not, and shun news sources that challenge it.

Thing is, there are almost always going to be more facts than there is time or willingness to speak about or listen to them. So simply by choosing which facts to talk about and which to ignore, bias is created.

That's why I usually try to find multiple different articles for news, especially if it's a contentious subject (e.g.: politics/race/religion/etc).

edited 19th Apr '12 7:15:29 PM by 0dd1

Yeah, but that bias will be caused by me, the reader, who makes the choice of which fact to look at and which fact to ignore, rather than the news, who would then be choosing which side I am to be on if they give out some facts and not others.

edited 19th Apr '12 7:17:16 PM by IraTheSquire

I believe he's referring to newswriters cherry-picking the facts themselves.

I count that as part of "not presenting the facts"- which I take to be "presenting all facts and nothing but the facts".

edited 19th Apr '12 7:26:52 PM by IraTheSquire

I will say that not giving the whole story is more or less the same thing as lying about it in my own personal opinion, but from a certain point of view they are still being factual, if only to a certain point.

@Greenmantle: Thats pretty much how it works here. Though I guess news here can be biased in manner of what footage they decide to use and what interviews they use. Breivik's(sp?) court news was something like this(note: I don't remember it exactly and I'm bad at translating Finnish to English, so I'll just do short abridged version because its hard so I cut of few lines I heard):

"Breivik admits to killing 77 people, but doesn't consider it a crime. Families of his victims were moved(correct term? ^^; I mean the one that basically means tearing up or... Well, you probably know). He says it was to protect Norwegian culture. Only time he showed any emotion during court was when they showed his own propaganda film about dangers of Islam that moved him. When court was over, Breivik was smiling to his attorneys.*interview with some girl who didn't in the end go to the camp saying something like "I don't know how he could have heart to do this, maybe he didn't have heart at all")"

Like you can notice, there are some things that aren't necessary know even if they did happen. Though I think this is more common in rather sensitive/emotional subjects and such, but even then News don't ever take official stances, show any emotion during them, make accusations in tone that shows them to be emotionally distraught and such. Really, its hard to be completely neutral and sometimes you can notice that from wording/interviews/what they chose to show, but I think most of the time they are being neutral.

edited 19th Apr '12 8:33:25 PM by SpookyMask

I'm with stating the facts. I rarely watch any news because it's propoganda telling me what I should be outraged or happy about. I go into stories looking for what's not there. I tried explaining this t my mom when a segment came on about how many vacation days Obama has taken in his term. I pointed out they never compare him to any other president's vacation to show how excessive it is, so I doubted it was the horrible indicator they claimed. I don't have the time to fact check what is supposed to be a trusted source. I also don't need the media deciding guilt or innocence in court proceedings they don't have information on just because every story needs a good villain. All the news does is get people riled up to debate with contradictory facts from the same studies.

I'm not sure "neutral" is even a feasible goal anyway if only for lack of absolute reference point. I'd say I want "open-minded" news though, stuff that is willing to challenge prevailing assumptions so that I can look at different stories' claims and come to my own conclusions about which make more sense.

I don't envy American viewers. For a short while, I was stuck with only American-based TV news reporting when I was in Japan (for some reason, BBC World was acting up). Ye. Gads. Talk about culture-clash.

When we got the good old Beeb back up and running, I practically hugged the screen. I'll take semi-in-depth (and sometimes very in-depth) information over rampant gerrymandering and fluff any day. Yes, the Beeb doesn't entirely escape a viewpoint: but, at least it shows there are other flavours available if I do a little digging. And, often points out where I'll find 'em, too.

edited 14th May '12 7:03:46 AM by Euodiachloris

Indeed. It's pretty damn well unbiased in its sources. The amount of times I've heard them say "X was reported in The Guardian [a left-wing paper] and "Y was reported in The Daily Mail [a rancid far-right tabloid]" in the same news bulletin...

Neutral can take a long walk off a short dock. Neutral can be manipulated by moving the discourse to the right or left (it seems that it's usually to the right around these parts).

What I want is unbiased news. If the facts fit one viewpoint more than the other, then so be it, report it all the same, because news is about facts. If one side is clearly in the wrong, that is a fact and should be pointed out, rather than given equal weight in the name of "neutrality". Much of what we have that calls itself "news" is not news, it's bullshit. Tell us what actually happened, no more, no less.

Thing is, there are often more facts than can fit in a news broadcast, and someone's got to decide which facts deserve mentioning and which do not.

I think "unbiased" was the term actually meant by the OP, but the internal thesaurus threw up "neutral" when it came to naming the thread.

And, being reminded of that by your news-station is something that is golden. If they can't flesh everything out in a report (time-constraints being one reason why not), they should have the duty of care to direct you where you can. That's good journalism.

edited 14th May '12 9:19:54 AM by Euodiachloris

Even if it's Self Promotion Disguised As News?*

Then you go on the website and find a counter-article (probably failing to be buried very deeply).

I expressly said the BBC does not escape its own viewpoint from time to time. But, even within that viewpoint, it can and will direct you elsewhere (even when buffing that self-promotional halo over-much in doing so). Good luck finding that in many other places, mate.

edited 14th May '12 9:48:10 AM by Euodiachloris

I think that most, if not all, news outlets have confused "reporting" with "commentary". Most so-called "reporting" these days is thinly veiled commentary.

It's reporting to say that "The President spoke today and advocated passing such and such law."

It's commentary to say, "The President made a strong case in favor of such and such law today..."

News outlets use a lot of key "weasel" words to try to disguise what they're doing. "Some say" is a good one. "Gaffe" is another one. Asking rhetorical questions is also dishonest, "Is the President eating puppies for breakfast? We'll bring you the story right after these messages."

The media has a right to comment and offer opinions on events. But too often they don't tell you that they're giving commentary or opinion. That's just dishonest.

And then we have so-called "debate" shows where you take two crazy frothing morons, or one crazy moron and one meek yes-man and let them yell at each other across the studio. Debate is fine, punditry is stupid. I would love to see two or more actual, qualified experts offer their opinions on something without resorting to yelling, personal insults or anything else that reminds me of Jerry Springer.

And honestly sometimes there is just one side to things. If one side has actual, scientific data and experts to support their position and the other side is just a bunch of gibbering idiots, you don't need to give equal time to the gibbering idiots.

@ Euodiachloris: I know, I know. I was playing Devils' Advocate there . Then again, no news can avoid being biased — it's impossible, those making the News are only human after all.

But from what I've seen of US News, Thank God...

Yes, I really want unbiased news.

I will be more than happy to form my own opinion of a bit of news, I don't need anyone else dropping their pre-digested and formed opinions about the event unto me.