UKC

Good morning All,

which news service provides the most accurate, unbiased information and reporting? Or to put it another way, how to get the most real view of world affairs?

In reply to Rich W Parker:

bbc.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

You would probably need to read numerous sources to get the most accurate picture, any single news source has it's biases but obviously the sun is going to have a different set of biases to reuters.

We're lucky to have the bbc despite it's faults. Also try the real news, alter net and the independent but then you will probably want to read non western news sites as well if you want to get a fuller picture of world afairs.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

I find that The Daily Mash often gets closest to reality.

In reply to Sharp:

I would add that whatever you read - always wear both your critical thinking hat and your open mind hat.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

Reuters? I don't use it particularly (I like to have my own biases reflected back at me by Channel 4 News, and the reliable pseudo-balance - which I don't think is either Tory or Labour, it just varies according to topic - of BBC Radio 4).

In reply to Rich W Parker: I see KKK's around. Expect a visit soon.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

No one news source, you'd have to read a huge variety and then be critical and questioning of them all tbh. I think if anyone thinks the BBC is in any way unbiased they're a bit delusional!

In reply to JayPee630:


Left wingers think it's right wing biased, and right wingers think it's left wing biased. Therefore it's probably somewhere in the middle. Care to offer a single news service which offers more accurate, unbiased information and reporting?

In reply to RyanOsborne:
No, I said there wasn't a single news source to provide it all, but I would say there are plenty better than the BBC. There are ways to be biased that don't fall into a left/right split you know!

In reply to JayPee630:

Well the OP asked which 'service provides the most accurate, unbiased information and reporting?' and you can't offer one more accurate and unbiased than the bbc, so I'll stick with my original answer.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

FT




lcb

In reply to RyanOsborne:

What makes you think the BBC is less biased than any other source then?

In reply to JayPee630:


Do you think the BBC is as biased as any other source? I would necessarily claimed it's free of bias but yours would be a very strange contention.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think it's very biased, but not on a simple left/right split. It's biased in favour of UK interests, the royal family, democracy, capitalism, etc etc. In a global context, it's incredibly biased.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

Unfortunately the BBC is no longer impartial but very pro establishment. Just look at its coverage of Yemen, Scottish independence, the internecine struggles within the Labour Party or its forelock tugging coverage of the monarchy. Channel 4 news is great for mainstream coverage. But its hard to beat social media for immediacy and a spectrum of opinions. You just have to be able to filter out the mad and the bad.

In reply to JayPee630:

But your claim appears to be that the BBC is as biased as "any other source". Which given the cornucopia of news outlets available is hyperbolic bollocks.
And you still haven't suggested anything better.

In reply to JayPee630:

BBC News used to boast about how many correspondents they had around the world. Now they don't.

Given that they have a 24 hour news channel, the range of stories covered is very narrow, on a 15-minute repeating loop.

I'd much rather they provided greater depth. I guess they think that the 15-minute loop is twice the 7-minute attention span...

RT, AJ and other global news outlets provide a wider news item coverage, provided you take the same care with editorial bias.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yeah, Al Jazeera (English version) was an outlet I think it more rounded and balanced than the BBC. TBH having spent time in East Africa most of the main news channels there have better more global and in-depth coverage than the BBC.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Because there's different types of bias, but in terms of depth and coverage the BBC is really very shallow.

In reply to JayPee630:

Martin Bell seems to think the depth of BBC coverage of things happening overseas has lessened over time, that it's become more UK-centric.

(Subjectively, I don't perceive the same depth of coverage of what was happening in the Balkans during the 90's being applied to more recent events, but that might be because I was a teenager at the time, and the conflict in the Balkans made a deep impression on me which has stuck...)

In reply to Rich W Parker:

IMHO opinion you need to get a good range of news outlets for a reasonably rounded view and don't believe everything you read in the papers/TV/radio never mind internet sources (I should know as I teach burgeoning journalists and media people. Whilst many mention the BBC and it has obviously got its merits, their coverage can be limited in some areas. I think you need to get your news from as many (vaguely credible) sources as possible and also from experts in the field directly. I regularly read the BBC, the Economist, the German ARD, ZDF, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Nationalist, The Herald and the Daily Record (am often quite impressed at how good the Record actually is on the quality of its journalism) and occasionally the Guardian; STV is good on Scottish news, too. Gives me a good spectrum. If I have to - I read the Daily Telegraph at a friend's house just to give me the more rightwing views for information. I cannot bring myself to read the Daily Mail even if given away free on a plane. It's too irritating (bad sensationalist news). Better even if you can read more sources from round the world. It's an eye-opener to read how other countries see issues (but there is only that much time in the day).

In reply to alastairmac:


It supports the Yemeni establishment?

In reply to MG:

What I meant was that it hasn't covered the war in Yemen other than sporadically and then in no great detail. Specifically the ongoing slaughter of civilians by the Saudi armed forces using UK supplied weapons. The UK is tacitly and practically supporting the Saudi forces while justifiably condemning what it happening in Syria. As is our current Foreign Secretary ( shakes head in disbelief) . And the BBC is very quiet about it all.

In reply to alastairmac:
From a few hours ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38052529

There seems reasonable coverage overall for an obscure country

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/e6b869f9-0a85-47e9-a098-d5b48e018b1a/yemen...

In reply to Rich W Parker:

Southend News Network

https://www.facebook.com/southendnewsnetwork/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

In reply to MG:

The website is one thing. Why can't BBC News 24 have adecnt breadth of stories, than than the rotating 15 minutes it has for most of the day. Even the ticker feed has only about three stories that go round all bloody day; it's not 'news', it's 'same shit we were pumping out this morning'.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I imagine it's fishing in the airport lounge market, so 15mins is quite long

In reply to Rich W Parker:

It doesn't matter.
Sift the facts from the comment and make your own mind up.

In reply to MG:

Perhaps they've missed the fact that they're the British Broadcasting Corporation, not the British Airports Entertainment Corporation...