This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Trying to report what really happens and what people really say, not what anonymous sources on antisocial-media want you to believe for their own ends, what happened or was said.
Where you live affects it a lot.
If you live in a country like Russia, Turkey or China the media can and must tell you only what the government wants you to think.
If you live in a democracy but the media are all commercial, unless there are strict controls on separating news reports from opinions so you know which is which, you need determine the proprietors' political leanings to judge the fairness of the reporting. Remember that they do not need lie to bias the reports. Newspapers commonly give selected facts without qualification - e.g. by omitting important conditional clauses from quotes of speeches; or by giving only one side of a dispute. You usually soon know, and allow for, their bias.
If you live in a country with public-service rather than State broadcasters you can usually trust those. An indicator of political neutrality is not only them trying to present both sides of an argument or even war, but critics (probably wanting bias in their favour), alleging bias towards their opponents.
In the UK the commercial broadcasters are under the same obligation as the BBC to avoid biased reporting as much as possible, to make clear the difference between reports and opinions, and to allow opposing opinions to have their say. On the whole they do, to the extent that when I hear or read an attack on their credibility I carefully consider the critic's own ideology and motive first.
If they are reporting on something very difficult or dangerous to investigate, such as a war, they will say when some claim by either side cannot be verified.
Where you live affects it a lot.
If you live in a country like Russia, Turkey or China the media can and must tell you only what the government wants you to think.
If you live in a democracy but the media are all commercial, unless there are strict controls on separating news reports from opinions so you know which is which, you need determine the proprietors' political leanings to judge the fairness of the reporting. Remember that they do not need lie to bias the reports. Newspapers commonly give selected facts without qualification - e.g. by omitting important conditional clauses from quotes of speeches; or by giving only one side of a dispute. You usually soon know, and allow for, their bias.
If you live in a country with public-service rather than State broadcasters you can usually trust those. An indicator of political neutrality is not only them trying to present both sides of an argument or even war, but critics (probably wanting bias in their favour), alleging bias towards their opponents.
In the UK the commercial broadcasters are under the same obligation as the BBC to avoid biased reporting as much as possible, to make clear the difference between reports and opinions, and to allow opposing opinions to have their say. On the whole they do, to the extent that when I hear or read an attack on their credibility I carefully consider the critic's own ideology and motive first.
If they are reporting on something very difficult or dangerous to investigate, such as a war, they will say when some claim by either side cannot be verified.