On the one hand we have the comparatively mild bias shown by bbc and al-jazeera, and of course the much more flagrant propogandising by fox news and Iraqi tv; but which tv stations/news websites are actually providing (subjective concept ahoy!) the most well-rounded coverage?
That is an entirely subjective question. You won’t get a straight answer.
That’s why I put it in Great Debates:) .
I don’t believe any single mass-market station or publication can be truly objective. The cynical part of me assumes that every owner has a certain bias, which may or may not be moderated by the editor(s). I believe this is particularly true of the larger, international organisations, who have a vested interest in appealing to particular governments or opposition parties in order to maintain or expand their position–I don’t say this as a slur, but as a symptom of business reality. The BBC would seem to me to be the least biased global news organisation (but not necessarily completely unbiased) due to scrutiny linked to it being publically funded, but I can see from other threads that this may be a contentious opinion in its own right.
I think the War Diaries on the BBC News web site are the most balanced / least biased reporting. Just report the news as it happens, with very little personal interpretation.
You think that Al-jazeera has a “mild bias”? :eek:
Yes, I do, bearing in mind I did use the word ‘comparatively’. You should hear what some of the other Arab news stations are like.
The main reason I directly compared bbc and al-jazeera is that it’s an easy comparison; they’re both state-funded with satellite news.
Well, perhaps surprisingly, if you put it all together, I don’t think this forum (with cites) does a bad job of presenting a rounded picture of the war and the issues … YMMV … there’s ‘anti-this’ and ‘pro-that’ and almost everything … even a little French … just missing a couple of Republican Guards, ditto Palestinians and the voice of the authentic Muslim on the street, IMHO.
Better than most resources, though …
I was watching CNN while working out about 2 weeks ago. They had a poll going that was “Are you for peace or are you patriotic?” That’s what I heard, what I read on the closed captioning and I conferred with the other people I was working out and they all said that that’s what they heard too. If I only had a VCR for that moment.
NPR
The many times I’ve visited the States, I noticed that NPR in a lot of areas plays BBC World Service news for its international stuff. It’s therefore horrendously anti-war (according to december et al).
I’m going to presume here that the most balanced reporting is likely to be that of a news service from a country that has a more or less free press and doesn’t have a dog in the fight. With that in mind, for English-language broadcasts I’ll nominate…our neighbors to the north, CBC.
Although the Beeb hasn’t been bad, overall.
My local NPR station runs BBC World Service 11 p.m. to 5 p.m. NPR does not use the BBC for their network feed.
I think NPR’s Special Coverage is fair and balanced. But I guess that’s my opinion.
I know that some may find NPR boring because they don’t use special sound effects to punctuate headlines. But you all might wish to give NPR a listen.
Before the war started NPR broadcast several first hand reports of Saddam’s chemical attacks on the Kurds that occurred 10-15 years ago. I don’t think Bush and the Republicans could have produced better propaganda for Bush’s war.
I think that there is a difference between “balanced” and–well, I’m not sure of the right term, but perhaps “morally relativistic” gets the idea across. Problem is, I’m not quite sure how to articulate it. Balanced, I would say, means that it gives all the information possible. Where the armies are, what conditions are like, what is each side saying/doing, what is the worldwide reactions like, etc. Morally relativistic (for the lack of a better term at the moment) goes so far in attempting to see things in shades of gray that everything has equal rate, no matter how diametric they may be. I saw a good editorial or two on this that would help to explain my position, and I think it might’ve been on the MSNBC website. I’ll take a look and see if I can find them.
It is extremely difficult to write something without bias, and impossible to write something incapable of being read as biased.
What I look for is a reliance on facts, an honesty about what is supposition and what is known (and the gradient in between), a willingness to correct errors and an effort to present opposing views with respect and completeness.
This is why bbc.news.co.uk is my first stop for world news. This has been the case ever since Kosovo, when they had an analysis of what Milosovic hoped to gain from the confrontation that wasn’t “HE’S INSANE, I tell you, INSANE!”
(Note: Milosovic is/was a genocidal brute, but his actions in Kosovo were not random. His actions were based on decisions to try and stay in power, given the situation, theinformation he had and subject to his own biases. BBC online did a good job of laying that out.)
I think Crusoe and London_Calling make excellent points.
Every news outlet has its biases, even if it isn’t intended.
The US stations report the news, but they focus on the news that their viewing audience wants to hear. The exact same thing can be said for al-Jazeera (as I understand it, I don’t speak arabic, so I don’t have first hand knowledge).
However, from all reports from those that do speak arabic, al-Jazeera has a solid reputation for unbiased reporting. Just like CNN, they report the facts, but focus on what their viewing public wants to hear.
From our perpective, they’re biased. From their perspective, CNN is biased.
I suspect the best answer is to watch both, and interpolate.
Unfortunately, the new english language al-Jazeera website has been taken completely off the web by hackers (how freedom is served by blocking access to news organization is beyond me). Which makes it difficult for an “only english” speaker like myself to find a good balance. That’s where the SDMB comes into play.
The most pervasive and influential bias I’ve ever seen is the bias toward what is perceived to attract viewers and garner ratings.
Okay, I’ll risk a hijack here and ask: why do some people think Al-jazeera is an unreliable and heavily-biased source? I mean, yeah, they’re presenting things from the other side of the fence, and reporting stuff that makes war-eager Americans uncomfortable, but that’s hardly bias in and of itself, is it?
Is there any objective points to show that Al-jazeera is deliberately slanting things to put the U.S. in a negative light, or are the “Al-jazeera is biased!” claims simply the pro-war faction trying to silence a dissenting view?
First, in my case I am not in the pro-war faction. I was originally on the fence and later came down on the anti-war side shortly before the war started.
My impression of the bias of Al-jazeera is based on things I heard about their reporting during the Afghanistan war. My memory is too hazy to give details at the moment. To be fair, I haven’t heard many details about Al-jazeera’s coverage of the war in Iraq. Perhaps they are being more even-handed now.
But for those who are saying that they are not terribly biased, do you really understand Arabic? Or do they provide English closed captioning perhaps?
The bias of the OP is showing, in that he puts Fox news and Iraqi TV in the same level of bias. :rolleyes:
I watched Hannity and Colmes last night. This is a model more stations should follow. Now, you can go ahead and complain that Hannity is overpowering and it isn’t a fair match. So what. At least they are showing both sides. The format is a great one.
Instead of having one person on any show try to not be biased, which is basically impossible, IMHO, they should always have a pro and con postion. It would usually apply to Liberal and Conservative, but could be anything, like pro and anti war.
My personal stragegy for the time being is to listen to the “old media” (newspapers and networks) as well as the “new media” (cable news and talk radio).
According to the old media the war is going terrible, they focus on the negative. According to the new media everything is going great, militarily. However, we should be more aggressive and willing to inflict civilian casualties in order to protect US troops.
The truth lies in the middle. But, I am glad that at least both sides of this story are getting told.