Proud of your Flag?

Status
Not open for further replies.

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
A few of us (or more) who get their news from international online broadcasters like Al Jazeera, France 24 and Euronews have been saying for ages how important debate from different sides of a question is. These channels regularly have debates between typically 3-4 experts in different fields. Very healthy. Makes the BBC look very dated and out of touch.
 

Zhang Doe

Forum GOD!
A few of us (or more) who get their news from international online broadcasters like Al Jazeera, France 24 and Euronews have been saying for ages how important debate from different sides of a question is. These channels regularly have debates between typically 3-4 experts in different fields. Very healthy. Makes the BBC look very dated and out of touch.
BBC isn’t out of touch; it knows exactly what it is doing. The same can be said of most major news organisations in the US these days.
 

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
BBC isn’t out of touch; it knows exactly what it is doing. The same can be said of most major news organisations in the US these days.
Maybe "out of touch" is the wrong way of putting it - I take your point. I'd also say that Radio 4 is several times better than BBC TV. But of BBC TV news I'd say that it has been obsessed with the pandemic and almost nothing else and there has been little 3 or 4 sided debate - not something the BBC TV news does unless they're reading the papers once in a while. So yes, for me this is a dated format given that Al Jazeera, France 24 and Euronews are giving wider and deeper coverage of issues. For me, you need to rise above pure factual reporting and give balanced overviews to interpret what's happening. There's better coverage of Brexit on these 3 channels than on BBC TV, even.
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Forum Sod
Maybe "out of touch" is the wrong way of putting it - I take your point. I'd also say that Radio 4 is several times better than BBC TV. But of BBC TV news I'd say that it has been obsessed with the pandemic and almost nothing else and there has been little 3 or 4 sided debate - not something the BBC TV news does unless they're reading the papers once in a while. So yes, for me this is a dated format given that Al Jazeera, France 24 and Euronews are giving wider and deeper coverage of issues. For me, you need to rise above pure factual reporting and give balanced overviews to interpret what's happening. There's better coverage of Brexit on these 3 channels than on BBC TV, even.
Anything other than pure factual reporting isn’t news it’s opinion. Opinion has no place in the news. News should be reported bias free. Facts should be reported as such not given political spin to suit a corporations agenda.
 

halvor

a most elusive fish
Anything other than pure factual reporting isn’t news it’s opinion. Opinion has no place in the news. News should be reported bias free. Facts should be reported as such not given political spin to suit a corporations agenda.
What are facts and truth? A fact is something known to be or proven true. How do we know, and what is a proof? From science? Whether scientist or journalist, even what you choose to focus on, study and report, is the object of bias. We’re all biased to some extent, and it’s difficult to escape our basic and often unrecognised assumptions about the world we inhabit. We interpret what we see based on previous experience and our being the product of our upbringing in time and place, be that in our tacit judgment of people we meet (or watch when they’re reporting the news) or how we assess situations. Moreover, a basic insight from philosophy of science is that we can never really prove something. We can, on the other hand, refute and disprove, and by our continued and collective efforts, we move towards that elusive truth.

Ok, so maybe news media should nevertheless TRY to report objectively and neutrally the facts alone. That would be a separate and borderline boring news genre, though. I also like to get the analysis of what lies beneath, what led to, what are the consequences, etc - all dimensions which go beyond the factual description of an event, at least to some extent. The inviting of several views mentioned above is a good check on bias which could be used more. News should encompass both facts and opinions, in my opinion, but that hinges on acknowledging underlying assumptions and stating more clearly where one stands. That could make for a good start at finding common ground and help humanity reorient our currently diverging paths.
 

Wayne

Forum Sod
News readers read scripts. Pre prepared, they do not have a lot of say in what they read out, news editors do. So fact could be
Man trips on raised flagstone and breaks leg. Factual, to the point, bias free, however what we usually get is
Today a man was forced to the ground breaking his leg due to the Governments refusal to pay money to the local council in order to fix several miles of dangerous pavement which was left to deteriorate as the area was not deemed important enough and funds had been diverted towards the building of new government project several hundred miles south.
we asked the Government to comment but they refused
The man may be O.K but will probably be evicted due to losing his job and may never play the piano again
 

les24preludes

Forum GOD!
Whether "facts" are "facts" is an endless discussion both for news and for history books, and periodically what were taken to be facts are revised. Video reporting brings us closer - in theory - to facts (look at the George Floyd case), but not that close. Videos and photos can be modified in all kinds of ways and video footage isn't always correctly attributed to its source. In the Balkan war the same identical footage was used to depict both Serbs and Bosnians. By and large proper professional journalists will try and establish facts. I used to be a journalist for a short time and worked briefly for Reuters and they were very fact focussed. But yes, there is bias. In the Balkan war the BBC was a mouthpiece for Nato. I actually asked a couple of BBC journalists at the time whether their stories were being doctored by their editors and they said no - it was how the journalists themselves saw the situation. So bias can be with journalists as well as editors.

I wouldn't dismiss "opinion" completely, though it can be meaningless. Analysis by experts in the kind of panel discussions we've been talking about is at least partly evidence based, in that academics generally are used to being extensively peer reviewed in the process of doing the research that gives them their qualifications and jobs. I agree with Halvor - I want to have some pretty solid analysis alongside pure news reporting, and I want the analysis to be done by a balanced panel of people who know their subjects very well.
 

UKRob

Forum GOD!
I agree with Wayne to an extent. Statements such as ’the current death toll due to Caronavirus is x’ can be attributed - whether the total number is correct or not. Statements such as ‘the governments failure to implement lockdown 2 weeks earlier has resulted in x number of unnecessary deaths’ are both contentious and impossible to prove. Of course the media has a right to report that some scientist has made such a claim, but they also have a duty to balance that report by putting it into context, including the claimants background and peer opinion if available. However, what seems to happen is that the claim will immediately be taken as absolute truth and some poor sap of a government representative will be hounded by a pack of reporters asking what he intends to do about it. Meanwhile, as the saying goes, the claim has gone round the world before truth has got its boots on.
 

halvor

a most elusive fish
Over here, at least for our BBC equivalent NRK, the news anchors prepare their own script AFAIK. If anything, I think they may have a little too much to say, as they apparently can refuse to say this or that or cover that story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top