UKC

Balanced media reporting

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 john arran 26 Jun 2016
Clearly the BBC has a duty to present political events in as neutral a manner as possible, and the fact that it's frequently accused of bias from pretty much all sides suggests that it gets close to achieving that. However, the same does not apply to private media channels, which are free to report a very one-sided view without apparent restriction.

Would it be a good idea if, from the moment an election or referendum is officially called, private media is required to conform to the same level of balance? Presumably limited exceptions should be possible if they are clearly marked as Opinion rather than News but on the whole would such a regulation be beneficial? Or would it all get too complicated now that news sources aren't easily separable from social media?
1
 Scarab9 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

Personally our news media worries me a lot. Their power cannot be underestimated.

I think some control of them is required but cant think of a good way of doing it. Free speech is important and the line between opinion and fact is a difficult one to define in political terms.

One focus could be empires held such as Murdoch who owns multiple outlets with varying agendas. Could we restrict ownership in a manner similar to anti monopoly rules? Would that help though or would they find ways round it? Would it make for less bias reporting, or more bias but just more divided?

I really don't know what the answer is but hope one is sought
2
 Jon Stewart 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

I think it's a good idea, but I don't think it's workable. I just can't see how an independent body would review all the output that would be called into question - presumably after the fact, since there's no way everything could be reviewed before release.

As an aside, the BBC hasn't felt very impartial since the announcement of the result - the tone of every report has been funereal and certainly not jubilant.
1
 Rick Graham 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:



> As an aside, the BBC hasn't felt very impartial since the announcement of the result - the tone of every report has been funereal and certainly not jubilant.

That might be because both sides are in shock.
Donald82 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

The bbc was terrible. He said she said neutrality is no neutrality at all - it's bias in favour of those that lie and mislead more, and does the public a disservice.
2
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

The reason that the BBC is required to be politically neutral is that it's publicly funded, and therefore required to maintain a balanced attitude. Anyone with the money to do so can start a newspaper, and promote whatever views they like in it.
 Peter Metcalfe 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> The reason that the BBC is required to be politically neutral is that it's publicly funded, and therefore required to maintain a balanced attitude. Anyone with the money to do so can start a newspaper, and promote whatever views they like in it.

It always astounds me that people claim that Russia Today must be biased (or a Kremlin propaganda machine) when the BBC is, er, the *British* Broadcasting Corporation.

Actually, now I come to think about it, pretty much nothing will astound me anymore after the total fecklessness displayed recently.
2
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> The reason that the BBC is required to be politically neutral is that it's publicly funded, and therefore required to maintain a balanced attitude. Anyone with the money to do so can start a newspaper, and promote whatever views they like in it.

... which really was the point of the question: Is this free-for-all state of private media bias justified in the run-up to important electoral events? Seems to me that there is a democratic imperative that in as much as is reasonably practicable, the electorate is in possession of good knowledge of the pros and cons of what they are voting for, rather than being left to the whim of media owners.
1
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Peter Metcalfe:

> It always astounds me that people claim that Russia Today must be biased (or a Kremlin propaganda machine) when the BBC is, er, the *British* Broadcasting Corporation.

Of course it's biased, and horrifically so, in much the same way as is Fox News, but of course with a rather different political bias. When you see a 20 min interview with some nobody from an unknown institution presented as authoritative opinion when there certain must be hundreds of genuine experts out there (with inconvenient opinions) that have been conveniently overlooked, you quickly realise this is not balanced reporting,
1
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Donald82:


Thanks. Having read it quickly I tend to agree with most of it. The BBC coverage was far from perfect, and it would be great if it could be improved in future, but equally it was far better than virtually all private mainstream media sources in that at least it tried. Should all private media sources be required to try?
1
 Root1 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:
Democracy can only function properly if the people are properly informed, that is, they are given unbiased information on which they can make rational decisions.
That is clearly not the case today in the uk, and it is about time the likes of Murdoch were made to report unbiased facts.
Freedom of the press should not mean they have carte blanche to promote lies and propaganda.
Post edited at 19:03
1
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

So what's the difference between you spouting your views on this forum and a wealthy newspaper owner spouting his views in the organ that he has paid for with his own money?
3
 Peter Metcalfe 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

That's probably true but the original point stands - there's no reason to assume that , per se , our state-funded broadcaster should be any less biased than Russia's.

> Of course it's biased, and horrifically so, in much the same way as is Fox News, but of course with a rather different political bias.
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> So what's the difference between you spouting your views on this forum and a wealthy newspaper owner spouting his views in the organ that he has paid for with his own money?

Well that's why I raised the point about social media complicating the issue. Fundamentally though the difference is that this forum is not a news site nor does it pretend to be. Anybody can (and does) disagree with opinions I and others express here and the opinion and opposition are effectively given broadly equal weight, whereas many news outlets are one-way and have little or no intrinsic balance. I would hope that the regulatory requirements for the two information sources would be very different.
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

It's called free speech. The First Amendment to the American constitution prohibits the making of any law infringing on the freedom of the press. So you are a closet censor are you?

I don't know how much you know about this topic - can you tell me to whom the phrase, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is often misattributed?
1
KevinD 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> It's called free speech. The First Amendment to the American constitution prohibits the making of any law infringing on the freedom of the press.

ermm and? I know some reckon we will end up being a full satellite of the USA but it hasnt happened yet.
Also I believe the USA has far more restrictive press ownership laws than the UK.
Its why Murdoch took USA citizenship.

1
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

Where did I suggest censorship? There's a huge and critical difference between censorship and balance. The freedom to continue printing whatever crap they want would not be affected; they would simply have a legal obligation to point out the other principal viewpoints in a factually correct manner and with appropriate balance.

And by the way we're not part of the US ... yet!
2
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

So Murdoch took US citizenship because he wanted to be bound by stricter press ownership laws?
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

I really do not believe that you understand the principle of freedom of speech - the right of any man to say what he thinks as long as he obeys the laws of libel and slander.

And you haven't answered my question.
1
KevinD 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> So Murdoch took US citizenship because he wanted to be bound by stricter press ownership laws?

yes. If by that you mean own the companies.
1
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

You may choose not to believe it if you so wish, or if it doesn't suit your argument.

And I have answered all questions I thought to be relevant.
1
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to KevinD:

I'm sorry, what you say is nonsense. He took US citizenship because the UK was too small a pond for him and he wished to be able to purchase a network of US TV stations.

We were talking about freedom of speech, which is an entirely different matter.
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

So do you believe in freedom of speech?
1
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

I raised a perfectly reasonable question about the need for effective information prior to electoral events. It is of no consequence what my personal position or beliefs are, but if you have a soapbox you would like to hop on then nobody is going to stop you - certainly not me.
2
 John2 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

You said, 'Would it be a good idea if, from the moment an election or referendum is officially called, private media is required to conform to the same level of balance?' and I am attempting to point out the implications of what you suggest.

It is actually my belief that you are so upset that the result of the Brexit referendum went against your wishes that you wish that newspapers were unable to print views with which you disagree. You and Vladimir Putin.
5
KevinD 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> I'm sorry, what you say is nonsense. He took US citizenship because the UK was too small a pond for him and he wished to be able to purchase a network of US TV stations.

no shit sherlock. Just what I wrote.
You have been meandering over various subjects including the sheer stupidity of comparing social media with a media baron.
Its rather stupid to just dribble out the 1st amendment bollocks without noting that the US do actually interfere with the press in ways that doesnt happen in the UK.
Pretty much all of the UK press would be in the shit if the UK passed a similar law (it would be particularly entertaining for the mail group).
2
 Trevers 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> The bbc was terrible. He said she said neutrality is no neutrality at all - it's bias in favour of those that lie and mislead more, and does the public a disservice.

I think there's a good point here. The BBC should have a duty to fact check when it reports on things that people say. If it fails to do so then it's indirectly validating whatever claim people make.

I managed to get a BBC article edited a few years ago - it was a case that some might remember where a young lady had knocked a cyclist off his bike then posted on Twitter that he didn't pay road tax. The BBC reported it in an "unbiased" way. I pointed out to her that what she said was demonstrably false and their failure to point it out was lending weight to a dangerous myth.

Same, I think, should apply here. Although separating out what has been claimed as fact, what has been claimed as opinion and what has been suggested as a promise or possible outcome sounds like a monumental challenge when you're dealing with something as complex as the referendum campaign.
2
OP john arran 26 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> You said, 'Would it be a good idea if, from the moment an election or referendum is officially called, private media is required to conform to the same level of balance?' and I am attempting to point out the implications of what you suggest.

If you were really trying to point such things out then you would have done so by now, rather than questioning my knowledge or beliefs.

> It is actually my belief that you are so upset that the result of the Brexit referendum went against your wishes that you wish that newspapers were unable to print views with which you disagree. You and Vladimir Putin.

You are of course free to believe whatever nonsense you choose. You're also free to express it here without genuine fear of recrimination, unlike in some countries I could mention.

If you really have an argument you're keen to present then please go ahead and explain it. When I read it in the morning I may learn something, or perhaps I'll dismiss it if I don't think it has merit. If I feel it's it's worth my while I may choose to respond in the morning.

1
 Laurence20 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Scarab9:
I think a good start (for papers at least), would be if the corrections were forced to be printed in the full size and same page as the untrue article was written. Basically it would put a stop to the 'EU to ban eggs by the dozen!' type headlines the Express/Mail etc are so fond of.
2
Donald82 26 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Thanks. Having read it quickly I tend to agree with most of it. The BBC coverage was far from perfect, and it would be great if it could be improved in future, but equally it was far better than virtually all private mainstream media sources in that at least it tried. Should all private media sources be required to try?

Not too sure to be honest. I guess we already have some rules in this respect so it's a matter of degree what requirements of honesty/expertise are placed on the press. I think we could do a bit more to require honesty around science and stats but beyond that it's difficult. Particularly with the Internet these days

I think the bbc's better than the right wing private stuff. I'd say the guardian and the independent were more objective on brexit and the financial crisis than the Beeb though - partly by chance, the facts/logic happened to be on their side.
2
Donald82 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Good for you!

And yes, it is difficult. One thing that might help is to have much less political reporters and more 'expert' reporters. So science guy would do politics stuff related to science, economics guy and so on. It's much harder let misleading stuff pass when you really know that it's misleading. It might also move the focus from political personalities to the real issues. (I'm an optimist!)
2
 Scarab9 26 Jun 2016
In reply to Laurence20:

That wqoi
> I think a good start (for papers at least), would be if the corrections were forced to be printed in the full size and same page as the untrue article was written. Basically it would put a stop to the 'EU to ban eggs by the dozen!' type headlines the Express/Mail etc are so fond of.

That would be good.

The regulator can make papers print corrections, and they say the correction must be of a similar size and placement, but having seen examples they never truly are and are often not clear.

Given they should not be needed in the first place it would be good if they were partly as punishment and were front page, large, and possibly written by the regulator. Might get noticed then and also stop it being needed

1
 tony 27 Jun 2016
In reply to John2:

> I'm sorry, what you say is nonsense. He took US citizenship because the UK was too small a pond for him and he wished to be able to purchase a network of US TV stations.

He took US citizenship because he wouldn't have been allowed to buy those US media outlets as an Australian. In order to own US media outlets, it's necessary to be an American citizen. That's because the US has tighter controls over media ownership than the UK.
 SenzuBean 27 Jun 2016
In reply to john arran:
I've thought a lot on this, and my only half-baked ideas are:

1) All error corrections must receive AT LEAST as much exposure as the original error. Errors include blatant lies, misquotes, and most importantly - lying by omission. For example - a page 1 lie, needs a page 1 correction.
In practice, that would mean "£350m? We could spend it on the NHS." would never have flown. It would be an error by omission to exclude the additional funding we receive from the EU (£200m a week was it?), and that it's likely our trade market will shrink causing a much greater loss of income - thus we won't have £350m extra, we will be -£400m (or whatever) - and while it is still possible to spend an extra £350m on the NHS, we would now have a £750m sized hole in the budget that would require cuts in other areas"
What constitutes an error, is a problem, and hence why we might need...

2) Some kind of reference requirements. It's not workable to require all stories to have references, but perhaps stories without them could be required to have [citation needed] on all unsupported facts. Would be tremendously unpopular at this moment in time, but I don't see much other ways. There would need to be some kind of "source ranking" as well, as obviously a newspaper can't quote itself objectively, and a scientific study has more merit than an anonymous source.

I don't see any other ways that can be more-or-less objectively policed (it needs to be as objective as possible IMO). A possible extension to 2) would be to have an automatic ranking of articles by their references, so the "truthiness" of an article can be approximated by the average truthiness of its sources (or lack thereof). That way people could actually see "oh, the DM is full of lies!".
Post edited at 14:21
2
 Root1 27 Jun 2016
In reply to In reply to john arran:
Democracy can only function properly if the people are properly informed, that is, they are given unbiased information on which they can make rational decisions.

I think it is quite reasonable to ask for the above. The media is full of lies and deceit and people cannot make an informed descision because of it. Its not a radical request.
2
Donald82 01 Jul 2016
In reply to Root1:

> Democracy can only function properly if the people are properly informed, that is, they are given unbiased information on which they can make rational decisions.

It's been going not too bad without that for quite sometime

1
In reply to john arran:
> when there certain must be hundreds of genuine experts out there

"We don't need no sterling experts"

£ 2016 The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Post edited at 22:59

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...