Comment by vinay427
6 years ago
I find it mildly ironic that you link to a clip from the PBS NewsHour while, from my reading, you also imply that objective reporting or investigative reporting don't exist or are dwindling. There are clearly some sources left that are worth their salt.
In the US, I've found most PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective, and the various NPR podcasts sometimes chart into investigative territory but there are other sources I rely on for this (e.g. ProPublica) which I don't expect to be just objective.
I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant about quality investigative journalism, so forgive me if I misread. I generally agree with your comment.
> PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective
For example, listen for ", without providing evidence" in NPR broadcasts. Notice how selectively it is used.
I consider Media Bias/Fact Check fairly objective and they rate NPR as having left-center bias.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check:
> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4]
I doubt that we can achieve absolute objectivity, that's why I wrote that I consider it fairly objective, not that it is. That said I don't see a reason why should Columbia Journalism Review or Poynter Institute be any better arbiters of what is correct way to measure bias. (Especially because both are competition.)
Also Poynter Institute has record of "weaknesses in the methodology".[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute
Having a bias doesn't in itself imply lack of objectivity, in relation to what we call 'facts' and 'truth'. It would seem somewhat of a coincidence if 'center' (politically) is right where that lies.
Not that I'm saying that 'reality has a liberal bias', as some would. I personally think it has a left bias, but I'm not nearly certain enough of my opinions to make that claim!
NPR isn't explicitly biased, but it does lean left. A recent example:
> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important
> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...
14 minutes later
> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic
> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.
"Unbiased" != "Factual".
"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?
That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
7 replies →
I don't think that's fair. The first article explains the WHO position, it does not endorse it.
Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
12 replies →
It's not really inconsistent to believe fighting against racial injustice is more important than the reelection of a specific president?
Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.
2 replies →