@
IndianaJoes Come on - I am not insulting you or your country. All nations have their own strengths and weaknesses and those strengths in both of yours include the right of free expression - with the responsibility of being civil about it.
Blocking me won't achieve anything useful, just remove another opinion you don't share!
I'll tell you the tests I apply to my sources of knowledge:
1) Is my source of news and analysis attacked as "biased" more or less evenly by
both sides of the argument? If 'Yes' it must be reasonably fair to both. The allegation is usually just attacking its moral courage to give ones opponents their say.
2) If apparently biased, is it by promoting
my views or the opposing ones? The former is harder to determine due to my own biases, and we need judge what is said and what is
not said.
3) If reporting something difficult, is it honest enough to admit being unable to verify independently some claim by one faction or another? This is common in war reporting where establishing the truth is notoriously, physically difficult and dangerous.
4) Doe reports contain qualifiers and nuances (e.g. points not yet established, doubts, exceptions or compromise)? Are statistics or specialist knowledge represented fairly?
5) Who owns it? Is the ownership clear and open, or hidden?
If a
broadcaster, is it a State service, a public-service one or a commercial one - I would expect the first and last to reflect their respective owners, but at least the independent broadcasters in the UK are under the same impartiality responsibility for the News reports as the BBC.
If a
newspaper, how is it biased? It is usually well-known, easy to recognise and allow for. Those in Britain do not usually lie (they would soon be caught out) but do use selective reporting: correct so far but incomplete.
One of the biggest enemies of impartial, fair reporting is the
subjects. Too often one side will retreat behind "no-one was available for comment", a bland "statement" or even point-blank "no". Journalists do know this but can't force a giant company or a government agency to accept the interview invitation.
6) If on the
Internet, what is its nature?
A "magazine"? Does careful reading and thinking reveal bias that may be obvious or subtle? Does it have a clear base, contact-address, proprietorial name, etc.
A statement presented by a single user on a social-media site or blog? Fact or opinion? If passing on something, does it contain the source reference or an honest apology where that is omitted, e.g. by general knowledge? If it touches on specialist knowledge you understand, does it do so correctly? Does it look like a believable quote from some report, study or reliable news source - which should be referenced to give you chance to evaluate it fairly? Does it contain any qualifiers that show where genuine doubt is due? If not of any of these, why not?
7)
You! (or me!) Do we read or listen to, and think about, fairly views not our own, or only those of which we approve and reject the rest out of hand?
NB: Understanding is NOT the same as agreeing with or (if malicious) condoning!
Encouraged by the nature of the Internet, wilfully ignoring, misrepresenting or blanking the other side for having different views, or hurling wild accusations or puerile insults at it, is one of democracy's biggest enemies. It denies understanding the people and matter at hand, and attacks the nature of compromise vital to any healthy democracy - be it the USA, the UK or any other.
