You could just as easily ask for an example from the Star showing obvious bias. Your 'even the bbc blah blah' shows your ignorance they are mandated to 'allow the other guy to speak' it's part of the deal with the license fee. The rest of them - like Fox (and CNN as Chris pointed out) are businesses to survive they make money from advertising. Therefore they have to have a point of view, neutrality doesn't sell adverts.
I read the Independent, Guardian and Telegraph and watch Channel 4 News (as well as independent sources for some issues important to me) so if something's only reported in one I know it's BS. But the bias is never quite as evident as Fox.
Hmm yes fair enough. My ignorance is due to the face I've been to America once (and that was a very short trip) and never taken an interest in its media before. The BBC is supposed to be neutral and it is to an extent (letting most sides speak) but it leans one way. Nowhere near as bad as Fox like I said (making it more dangerous?).
Do you read Private Eye? Buy it just one time. It's worth it.
Also Reuters / Associated Press is a far better source for news as the wire news is the meat and drink of most papers. They pick up the wire, then add their left / right spin.
By clicking a liberal a labour and a conservative paper and then deciding on the 'best option' you encourage all three to continue in their biases as they earn from your 'clicks' or purchases. By going straight to source you get the news before the opinion is added.
Their is also a plethora of underground news sources you can check out.
Yes but for pleasure. Do you watch Have I got News for You with the P.E. editor on it? Also, which news programme do you watch?
The underground news I find for particular issues which concern me etc, and with the papers yes I'll look into them but continue to read from multiple papers on different angles.
Also I'd be interested to learn which way you think the BBC leans. Because I know the common view on that. But I could show you a really interesting article about where BBC reporters move to after working for Aunty which may surprise you.
But ya know if the media repeat something enough you start to believe it ...
You read Private Eye? Then you know our media is as corrupt as any other media anywhere else in the world. It's a you scratch my back ... system. And yet you come here complaining about 'Murica ...
Used to be left wing I'm sure but now it seems to be right wing. I read an article that said the bias was Labour instead of Conservative in 07, but in 12 it shifted more the other way (with a larger bias too). The article was online I'll try and find it.
Ska the blatency of Hannity is what surprised me as most Americans don't seem skeptical.
The blatency is what sells Arun, Media is a business. A business that in general loses money, and the exceptions are the sensationalists outlets. That's why the Mail is one of the biggest online news outlets in the world, and Fox one of the most seen news outlets in the world.
Balanced reporting doesn't make money. CEO's ... well surprise surprise they like to make their shareholders money.
Yes that's the article, it's intuitive in itself, the right make money by propagating their rumour, and it helps them sell their own media whilst weakening the only opposition that isn't affected by market forces. That's why you should read Chomsky
Why do you think Rupert Murdoch campaigned so heavily for a cut in BBC onlines revenue when the license fee last came up for renegotiation ... and the Labour party probably caved so heavily (agreeing to 25% cuts in the most popular (world wide online news source) due to the 'Sun Wot Won It' headline and the fact that Murdoch owned at the time The Sun, The News Of the World, Sky (inc Sky News) and The Times (inc The Financial Times)
Hannity is a windbag. Most of Fox 'News' is. I am fine with them being right leaning, we all know MSNBC is the opposite. But Fox News has a habit of ignoring facts all together.
^yup. I watch Maddow daily, but i know she leans left. At least she presents facts...something fox news does not. You just have to use other sources in conjunction. One big difference is MSNBC does not have the motto "fair and balanced". The biggest joke is Fox News claims to be such.
Darkpie, I wasn't so much directing that comment at Chris, but more so at Kasparov and Arun (mostly Kasparov) for saying that any and all people that watch Fox News are "insane people". I don't want to discuss the legitimacy of certain news sources over others.
I have a very low tolerance for people who speak of others' political views in superlatives, as many people in my community choose to vote for the blue candidate for just that reason. I can get into the nitty-gritty of politics if you want, but there are just as many reflexively-Democrat-voting inner-city folk, if not more, than there are reflexively-Republican-voting southern farmers. In just the same way, there are plenty of educated Republican voters and plenty of educated Democrat voters.
My point is that calling out any single demographic and saying "these people are stupid" or "these people are insane" is ignorant and foolish and demonstrates a real lack of understanding. As you can certainly tell, I'm a Republican (at least fiscally), but I would be just as upset if somebody had said that all MSNBC watchers are ignorant buffoons. I almost never watch Fox News, just for reference, but please let me know if you guys actually believe that Fox viewers are definitively stupid, because I will not converse with people that are so close-minded as those types.
Also I'd like to call out how funny it is that Arun linked a site called "leftfootforward" for his "nonbiased" research results.
