As opposed to the press where?
Yes, it’s terrible how press bias has resulted in the promotion of manufactured stories about busts being removed from the White House in order to provoke partisan outrage against a President they don’t like. Simply terrible.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen mainstream media in Australia come out and explicitly say “We support Silly Party candidate Ole F’Tang F’Tang Biscuitbarrel for the state election” the way US newspapers/media seem to do.
The BBC isn’t perfect but it’s pretty unbiased, in my professional opinion.
Good guidelines for the press, echoing what some Dopers have said.
According to its critics the BBC is left-wing, right-wing, anti-Israel, pro-Israel, anti-war, pro-war and deeply committed to the status quo. So it’s biased in pretty much every direction.
I believe the definition of *biased *is “anyone who doesn’t agree with me.”
You were so close.
**biased
adjective
showing an unreasonable preference or dislike based on personal opinion:
The newspapers gave a biased report of the meeting.**
(post shortened)
The “alleged” reporter entered the room looking for something to whine about, something to trash Trump about. He thought he found it in the missing bust of MLK. He couldn’t wait to share his discovery with his overseers, who were then quick to alert public. Better to be first, than accurate, I guess.
If he had placed accuracy over being first (something that would have only taken a few minutes :rolleyes: ), there would have been no reason to apologize in the first place.
You consider the trashing of the mistaken/lying reporter to be unnecessary. The Trump administration seems to have grown tired of mistaken/lying reporting and responded in kind.
You object to Trump counter-punching the people who attack him.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues forward while the Democrat collective continues to share its sour grapes from the side lines.
Hmm… did Trump know of the apology when he criticised the reporter?
Different parts of the BBC have different biases.
Exactly. If nearly everyone thinks you’re biased against them, you’re probably doing an excellent job of not being biased generally.
Damn right I do! He’s the freakin’ President of the freakin’ United States of America! He’s supposed to act like a grown-up, not a middle schooler.
Forward?? Gitchyseff a compass. That’s not what forward looks like.
A politican makes statements that are deliberatly aimed at stirring people up, those things including outright lies, and the people have shown time and time again they refuse (at least in sufficient quantities) to raise any significant level of objection. The press, because it’s fallen to pitching for partisan interests, has lost all credibility for shaping the peoples’ moral response to the politician’s statements. The politican meanwhile (like a pig in slop in the resultant wisdom-vacuum), is savvy enough to recognize that all this publicity acts directly as a kind of potential energy, to be used by him later as he wishes. What do you do?
Stop reporting those statements. Just stop.
The NY Times' front page article referenced in this thread's post #68 ("With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift") is a huge mistake.Individuals and individual programme makers certainly have individual biases, but corporately the BBC’s main bias appears to be to itself and the status quo. It’s not as small-c conservative as it used to be but neither is it the hotbed of liberalism the UKIP contingent insist it is.
Yes, it’s terrible when someone comes in looking for something to whine about, something to trash his political opponents about, with no regard for accuracy.
And here is an example of how the press should not act. The linked article reports on a site called Deadspin challenging Ted Cruz, getting answered by him, and being abusive in response.
There are no easy answers on what the press ought to do now. They had 9-12 months to figure out that Hillary Clinton’s email woes were a crock of shit in terms of rising to the level of “scandal” but they whiffed on that pitch and now they’re stuck with an authoritarian regime that sees reporters as more than just a nuisance, but as an enemy.
Maybe this would be the time to stop reporting TMZ-style crap, get rid of the news “personalities” and hire some real investigative reporters who have built a track record of getting the story even at the risk of their own lives or freedom. Maybe people who have a track record of reporting in war zones or in countries with authoritarian regimes – someone like a modern-day Peter Arnett perhaps. That might be a start.
The problem is, people don’t actually want to read that stuff. Oh, they say they do, but the numbers don’t back it up, which means the ad dollars aren’t there, which means news organisations can’t afford to pay people with the skills to research those stories. Which people likely wouldn’t read anyway.
Look at the Panama Papers thing. A team of international journalists spent ages researching and putting that together and pretty much no-one gave a shit about it at all.
There’s a couple of well-established news outlets that people trust for Serious News (things like the BBC, Al-Jazeera and The New York Times) but otherwise, people want that sweet, sweet infotainment rather than Serious News - and if they want Serious News, they’re going to an established player to get it.
Can’t sleep. Just finished looking over CNN, Reuters, Huff Post, NYTimes, and I see that after only a few days of waffling over how blunt their language should be when reporting on the White House, the press has found its sea legs and is having no problem or hesitation calling out the Trump administration on lies and misinformation in just those words. That didn’t take long…what, 10 days?
Not that he gives a fuck.
I’m waiting for the first one to ask Spicer “Sir, do you seriously believe the steaming pile of bullshit you just served up?”
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
“Nope - I’m good, thanks.”