Do we really want neutral news?

I'm repeating what has already been said, but I want "news" (un-biased or not) and not just "entertainment." Some of those graphics and such to keep it interesting is fine, but I want to hear about things that might actually have an effect on my life and/or I hadn't heard of and not things that only make for a good "story." Unfortunately, there are enough people who do care for the entertainment news (I'm talking about the things that deal with cooking and such as well as the entertainment industry) that it over-rides my own humble opinion. It's a no-win situation for the reporters/news networks.

As for what to do about it... I have no idea. But here is what I pay attention to:

NPR is reasonable and has the BBC segments (it is also what I listen to in the car). The economic TV news stations can also provide a lot of good information. There are certain reporters/programs/segments on channels that I trust more than others—generally the ones who have commentators addressing both sides of an issue and don't generally interrupt or yell at each other unless the other one is going long. Anderson Cooper 360 and Real Time with Bill Maher come to mind (While Bill himself is LEFT, he often has good commentators from both sides and isn't happy with Obama/the Democrats).

I probably should get my info from more sources, but most of the things I hear are not that interesting to me.

Most local news sources and NPR are good sources for unbiased news, but this thread is assuming that every news source has to have a political side. There are usually many sections or whole news sources that have non-political subjects.

Sorry. Yeah, this is for America

Good point.

edited 29th Jun '12 5:27:25 PM by every108minutes

This thread that is primarily American, you mean. I presume no such thing, and quite a few other Europeans and Brits from places who find strongly politicised news weird would agree.

Don't forget us.

Well, remember, America has no publicly-funded TV network to be unbiased.

We have two networks! (The BBC and Channel Four, which is actually a state news network)

PBS is publicly funded.

Hmmm.

But does everyone watch it?

Most people have state-funded news for the best unbiased source except USA, so they have a unique problem where all their news outlets need to make money. That usually runs into the problem of "don't bite the hand that feeds you". So depending on where they get their funding, that's their sacred cow that they cannot touch.

Why isn't that a problem for state-funded news programs? If they get their money from the government, how do they avoid giving the government undue control over them?

By the State making it so? Making it legally-bound to be neutral (as possible)?*

But isn't the State also the one who decides what's neutral and what isn't? Or is there a seperation of powers going on there?

Pretty much. What you must remember is that The BBC is a corporation. It just happens to be funded differently from other corporations, that is through a public fee, and not through sales/shareholders.

Therefore, The BBC is separate from state, and therefore, erroneous to call it a "state news network". In theory, Channel Four is the state-run television network, but again, it's just like any other television network; funded through advertisements.

...and not a Corporation in the "Limited Company" sense; it's on of the other type of Corporation, a Publically-Owned Corporation, formally owned by the Crown.

Channel Four is a Statutory Corporation*

One thing about unbiased news is that it's boring to most people. People from both sides are looking for strong opinions to either agree or oppose.

One way unbiased news sources get around this is to interview biased people (usually from both sides equally) so that it isn't actually the news network saying anything.

edited 30th Jun '12 12:18:59 PM by every108minutes

And that creates a lot of problems, where both views, even if one is completely insane and wrong, is seen as legitimate.

For example, due to the neutrality principles of The BBC, one could get a rather rational abortion advocate on a programme, however, there must be an opposing view. In most cases, it'll be a rather irrational anti-abortion activist.

(That's probably a bad example, because abortion is nearly a non-issue here, but hey.)

Well CBC once hosted four different experts on Iraq, most of whom were Iraqi. Their mandate is to have a balanced approach to journalism, which means getting more sources of information, not necessarily viewpoints. Thus they got a NGO expert, a university expert, a person from Iraq etc. And then they started talking about how Iraqis felt about the impending US invasion of Iraq over Saddam's supposed breach of a UN resolution.

Every single person said that was the stupidest thing America could do and no Iraqi will like it. The CBC host was visibly shocked on air and went "Wait, so, all of you don't agree with the Iraq war?"

Getting more information and from more sources makes sense. Getting information pre-assembled from different opposing viewpoints is pointless. It creates a false sense of importance to certain views that don't actually exist.

@ Raven

Crown corporations are funded by tax dollars. Tax dollars are under the control of the people. If the state-news corp began to act biased, the people get angry and the funding is hurt. We don't live in dictatorships.

Things paid for by tax dollars are controlled by taxpayers and taxpayers can demand whatever they want.

edited 30th Jun '12 12:52:46 PM by breadloaf

@ Raven. Also, governments are too damn busy to care about their image from a national news agency. It's not going to help them if they manipulate it.

Remember state =/= government. State is the machinery, which - by default - is politically neutral.

...and it doesn't mean the State-owned News Agency has to agree with the Government — it often doesn't.

And the mindset that everything needs o be entertaining and not boring is dangerous to have.

And why...?

Ah, so there's, like, a direct referendum or something to determine its funding?

No, it doesn't work like that.

Crown corporations are corporations that are set up by government, but operate at arms-length from it, ie. under the Crown. In Westminster democracies (like Canada and Britain) Crown corporations work for the Crown/State (politically neutral), and not for Government (who are politically biased).

And essentially, you can't mess with television. Why? Because people watch it. And if you start to meddle with it, people will notice.

And they will vote your asses out.

edited 30th Jun '12 6:24:44 PM by Inhopelessguy

Nope, funding for The BBC comes from the Television Licence.

Because only caring about things that interests you means that you miss out on things that are actually important, or things that challenges you perceptions which might need challenging.

But there still have to be some human beings somewhere who decide how much money to put into the BBC. According to Wikipedia, the BBC's funds are "allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation." So if some folk in DCMS, Treasury, or Parliament are pissed at something the BBC said, what's stopping them responding by being stingy?

It would be leaked and create a massive media storm — and it probably is something that isn't done and something nobody gets that worked up about, at least not enough to force a change in the Licence Fee.

And the BBC is probably very good at Lobbying Parliament.

The Licence Fee, like The National Health Service is just something that exists (and it is a Tax, and enforced the same way).

edited 1st Jul '12 4:34:45 AM by Greenmantle