This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
[i]Emmasfriend, Samualtyler[/i]
For some reason the Reply symbol on your two posts, one of them responding directly to me, is off.
However, genuine News consists of straight facts and reasoned analysis, and any opinions expressed should be clearly those of interviewees or cited quotes, and stated as such.
The BBC - which includes the World Service - and ITV do generally follow these principles.
There is an important, recognised problem of balance though, caused by interviewees or invitees themselves; [i]not[/i] by the journalists.
- If one side presents its case but the other lacks the courage and courtesy to take the offered opportunity, It is very hard for listeners to understand and judge the matter objectively.
This often happens on programmes like [i]You And Yours[/i] where the failed or wrongful party "is not available for comment", merely issues a bland "statement" as meaningless as an old-fashioned corporate "mission statement" - or simply refuses the invitation out of hand. It does not occur to them that their refusal is so self-defeating!
- Alternatively, the factual and reasoning partner is poor at explaining them; but is up against someone talking utter rubbish but very persuasively. In political debates everyone knows the interviewees are there to present their Parties' own opinions, even when interviewees waste the opportunity by merely spouting dodgy numbers, cliches and attack on their opponents. Instead, relative arguing ability is more likely to affect a-political debates of truth against for example, pseudo-science, cults, historical distortion.
The greatest threat to balance and freedom generally in democratic nations is not from real public-service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel Four (though discount the last if it is sold to God-Knows-Whom abroad - even perhaps Fox, Disney, Dubai or China...). It is not from mainstream newspapers because their political outlooks are well-known and usually fairly clear. It is instead, the Internet, via "social{?}-media" sites and blogs.
For some reason the Reply symbol on your two posts, one of them responding directly to me, is off.
However, genuine News consists of straight facts and reasoned analysis, and any opinions expressed should be clearly those of interviewees or cited quotes, and stated as such.
The BBC - which includes the World Service - and ITV do generally follow these principles.
There is an important, recognised problem of balance though, caused by interviewees or invitees themselves; [i]not[/i] by the journalists.
- If one side presents its case but the other lacks the courage and courtesy to take the offered opportunity, It is very hard for listeners to understand and judge the matter objectively.
This often happens on programmes like [i]You And Yours[/i] where the failed or wrongful party "is not available for comment", merely issues a bland "statement" as meaningless as an old-fashioned corporate "mission statement" - or simply refuses the invitation out of hand. It does not occur to them that their refusal is so self-defeating!
- Alternatively, the factual and reasoning partner is poor at explaining them; but is up against someone talking utter rubbish but very persuasively. In political debates everyone knows the interviewees are there to present their Parties' own opinions, even when interviewees waste the opportunity by merely spouting dodgy numbers, cliches and attack on their opponents. Instead, relative arguing ability is more likely to affect a-political debates of truth against for example, pseudo-science, cults, historical distortion.
The greatest threat to balance and freedom generally in democratic nations is not from real public-service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel Four (though discount the last if it is sold to God-Knows-Whom abroad - even perhaps Fox, Disney, Dubai or China...). It is not from mainstream newspapers because their political outlooks are well-known and usually fairly clear. It is instead, the Internet, via "social{?}-media" sites and blogs.