By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 05 April 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kantor said:

How nice it must be to have news show hosts who actually have opinions. We should try that in Britain. The closest we get to an interesting news presenter is Jeremy Paxman, and it's part of his job to be completely impartial in everything.

But when that happens it's no longer news - the news has to be objective by definition (Ofcom knows this and enforces it)

If you want opinion, read a newspaper (or opinion-paper as they should be called in Britain), go on internet forums, or watch opinion programmes - like The Big Questions on BBC One.

I'd actually make the counter arguement as well that the BBC is quite biased.  Honestly compaired to a newspaper like the unfortunatly named Christian Science Monitor that always goes out of the way to also advocate unpopular positions it looks extremely biased.

I'd argue there is no such thing as "Unbiased news coverage." 

The reporters political beleifs are practially the whole framework from which he views things.  That will ALWAYS effect how he views things even if they try not to.  There whole view of what unbiased means actually is biased.

The guy who hires people is going to want unbiased people, so he hires people HE thinks is unbiased... etc.

While i'm not a fan of advocacy journalism, I think it would be reckless to consider non advocacy based news shows unbiased... and EXTREMLY reckless to only have one main news source.

It would be absurd if I were to argue that unbias, purely objective news sources could exist; I know they can't. But I think news should try to be as unbias and as objective as feasibly possible if it is to present itself as news.