@4meAndyou I've got problems with static and my stylist recommended coconut oil. Haven't tried it yet though.

@dancingtongue It's a product of capitalism, I'm afraid. There's too much emphasis on turning a profit, getting ratings, getting subscribers, and you don't do that by objectively reporting events. You have to shock people, then charge them for the full story.

@LordShadowfire It's an abdication of accountability, personal responsibility, sense of community in today's society, imho. Freedom of the Press was so much on the minds of the Founding Fathers for the above reasons, and a primary reason for creation of the Postal Service was for sharing newspapers between the colonies/states. Not that those newspapers were objective and balanced; au contraire, most were founded to promote their editorial positions and biases. But communities held them accountable for being somewhat factual about their own communities, and there were competing newspapers in communities of any size. And the citizenry felt an obligation to be knowledgeable about their communities and their government, so subscribed to one or more to keep informed.

But the capitalist chase of profits above principle is part of the problem, which is why when "free" broadcast media came into being with radio, TV, this obligation of accountability, objectivity, equal time was spelled out by the FCC in its requirements to use the air waves. There had to be airtime devoted to local news, news had to be separate from entertainment, equal time for political views, time community/public service. Then the lobbyists and politicians managed to gut those FCC requirements, and the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were over, and 60 Minutes ushered in the current era of "news" as profitable entertainment.

@dancingtongue Interesting to read the perspective of a professional journalist.

I will say at the start I have never worked anywhere in that profession.


You admit the newspapers had their own biases, and though I don't know the American angle on this in Britain you could, and still can, identify their political leanings and so allow for them. They do not usually lie as that can be revealed nd may vene lead to libel proceedings, but they use careful editing, printing bare fact but omitting key qualifiers or reducing the opposition's defence.

I've noticed percentages are an easy tool for this too: 33.3% Rise In...!!!. Err, yes, but from what base figure - 1000? 10 000? 1 000 000? Technical ignorance too: "Exponential Change In...!!!. Rise or fall? Rapid or slow? Really exponential or arithmetically random?


There is one clue I have found for assessing an organisation's fairness: If the accusations of bias are from both, or all sides, of contentious matters it must be reasonably neutral!

Anrother, in really serious matters like wars and occasional American general-elections, is coverage of both sides of the conflict as far as practicable and safe. So the BBC is able to report from both Russia and Ukraine, but has to use trusted locals and aid-workers for anything Palestinian, due to Israel banning foreign journalists from Gaza. If a journalist is barred from a country of ill repute it is because the host government fears us learning of things it does not want revealing. So journalists do have to tread very carefully, use the correct official euphemisms like "special military operation", and quote accurately the government spokesman, the official line in the State newspaper or TV bulletin. So we know what that country officially thinks, and can judge it for ourselves. Interviewing local people takes a lot of skill and courage because you want an idea of their views but do not want to endanger either the journalist or the interviewee; nor risk losing the coverage.

Two things the BBC does:

- If quoting a source about something it cannot physically examine, it will say something like "the report cannot be verified".

- It has a Verification Department which looks especially at third-party on-line reports to assess their probity. One example is if the third-party report claims an incident in a videoed location, it examines the background details and compares it with other visual information to decide if the allegation is false or might be true.



I think most accusations of bias are really from people upset at the dissemination of opposing opinions as well as those they support; but there is also the unwanted bias caused by those being investigated refusing to give their point of view or explain their actions - basically, refusing to defend themselves.

We hear this all the time in the BBC Radio Four's Today current affairs, and Your and Yours "consumer"-affairs, programmes. Some governmental agency, local-government office or commercial organisation has been caught out in some way, but when invited to defend itself, refuses outright or hides behind "No-one was available for comment" (No I don't believe it either). It might "issue a statement" in the passive tense, as blandly useless as that daft "mission-statement" fad among 1990s businesses with opaque names and purposes. These, written by managers no more literate than they should be, typically state the blindingly obvious but use "we are committed to..." or the curiously double-edged "We strive to..."; admitting they are far from there yet!


The UK does have "Ofcom" (Office of Communications") to ensure as far as possible that broadcast news is as objective, accurate and fair as possible, with a clear separation between news reporting and airing of opinions, along with trying to maintain balance of views. Or as "Nortonsafesearch" puts it:


As a Civil Service office it is independent of broadcasters and government, but also has quite strong regulatory powers and will investigate serious complaints. If it has to investigate, the broadcaster has to report this, including whether the complaint is upheld or dismissed by Ofcom. Many are dismissed, but occasional upholding does happen.

What though it cannot do is regulate the Internet beyond those sites used by the public-service and commercial broadcasters. So it cannot do anything about the fictious "news" magazines intended as seditious material, placed on-line by the likes of Russia. A good clue as to their dishonesty apart from evident bias, is the lack of any apparent office address, and sometimes almost too-perfect English.

@CrazyMusicLover isn’t Dreft dish soap?

@DeletedAccount25 Possibly but I only knew this laundry detergent back in the day from this brand and it was simply amazing.

@rinkydinkydoink We have like 4 of them right in my area, they're everywhere here.

@Tumbleweed

I just googled them - very impressive chain!
I'm from Canada - we may finally get something like this in decade or so from now (unless we become a state soon... LOL)

@rinkydinkydoink It's a pretty decent store.
And Canada will always be CANADA. 🙂

@jshm2 we knew where we were with those guys.

@DunningKruger that's what we call a Curly Wurly in the UK. We used to have Marathon but now it's called Snickers.

@Pretzel good list

@NerdyPotato

This?

@rinkydinkydoink yes, but then pizza instead of original.