Bias in journalism

[Durrie]

Topical, but no commentary here? I'm disappointed.

Just so it doesn't go unnoticed in these pages, I'll link Alan Sunderland's article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/s ... ry/6764320.

It contains a link to Jonathan Holmes's article where Holmes says that biased journalism is what we get in our modern world, notwithstanding his experience of what "media consumers" say they want.

In last week's spray against Fairfax, Peter Dutton complained that its reporters "aren't supposed to be political players, they're supposed to be objective reporters of the news."

That's certainly a view that most media consumers still hold – or so our viewers told us time and again when I presented Media Watch. "The media should just give us the facts," they would complain. "We can form our own opinions."

...

But it's true that the days of "objective" reporting – cool, factual, impartial, unemotional, devoid of adjectives, or personality, or any trace of personal opinion – are well and truly over. It might be admirable in theory. In practice, unfortunately, it's too bloody dull.

Sunderland seems to want to disagree, but doesn't, and ends up shoehorning the term "objective reporting" into a definition of journalism that involves the opinion of the journalist in the reporting. He decides that what Holmes says most people want is not what Sunderland (and apparently other serious journalists) thinks they should get.

It has always been the case that reporters need to sift through facts, weigh them up, make editorial judgements about their relative strength and importance, and then present them in a way that illuminates the truth of a matter. It's not called 'editorial' content for nothing.

Me: "I'd like to purchase the black one please".
Alan Sunderland: "You'll have the white one and be thankful for it".
Centrelink clerk: "Hello Mr Sunderland, I'm afraid there's not much call for your opinions, how about a nice job cleaning the lobsters out of Jayne Mansfield's bum."

No wonder the "media" are an industry under pressure and the object of public disdain. It might be "dull" for the journalist, but they produce a product that I don't want, and it seems other people don't want it either. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

[DarrenM]

It was brought up in the politics thread.

It's why the ABC is so important. Not being beholden to commercial constraints (website isn't full of link bait garbage) and vested political interests (apart from one party wishing it didn't exist) frees them from all the bullshit fairfax and news corp get up to.

[norbs]

I hope this isnt a troll at J.D.

And I don't think all media is bad.

Are you suggesting The Australian and News are impartial?

[Cursed]

I would posit that it's entirely possible to claim that just about any statement of more than a few sentences in complexity can be interpreted as exhibiting some form of bias. Yours included, Durrie.

[Coopz]

The Liberals were so far up Murdochs arse last election it was a joke.

[Crowella]

Yeah but it was saved by that "your verdict 2013" tick that indicates it was a poll choice made by the public, not the media.

[smithcorp]

The Tele and the Australian can be described as a political organisations that employ journalists (not mine - read this somewhere on Twitter).

[Durrie]

I didn't write the articles guys. I'm not suggesting anything that isn't in the articles. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that even (apparently respected) journalists are saying that they don't report, they editorialise. They masquerade their work as information, when it's actually opinion. It used to be that a newspaper had a thing called an editorial, and you would read that if you were interested in what the editor's opinion on a topic was. Today we don't even get that choice.

@ Cursed, your post seems a little biased

@ Norbs, err wat? You didn't read the articles did you.

[norbs]

I didn't write the articles guys. I'm not suggesting anything that isn't in the articles. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that even (apparently respected) journalists are saying that they don't report, they editorialise. They masquerade their work as information, when it's actually opinion. It used to be that a newspaper had a thing called an editorial, and you would read that if you were interested in what the editor's opinion on a topic was. Today we don't even get that choice.

@ Cursed, your post seems a little biased

@ Norbs, err wat? You didn't read the articles did you.

I forget the question.

Here you go, the Dutch c**t has finally lost the plot.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/ ... 7546307247

[VTRacing]

I forget the question.

Here you go, the Dutch c**t has finally lost the plot.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/ ... 7546307247

Here's a free link: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opin ... 7546307247

[ysu]

Both are free links.
But both lead to a paywall

[Montey]

Comments from Barry Humphries...

http://t.co/vq7mbGyIXV

[pab]

Is it just me, or does that 'story' read like an ad for the Australian?

[DarrenM]

Always good to see unbiased comments about media bias...

Humphries’ relationship with The Australian began 51 years ago, soon after the newspaper was launched and Humphries wrote a regular column in it.
...
After a long history with News Corp, Humphries agreed to be part of News Corp’s advertising campaign to promote the tablet and mobile editions of the metropolitan newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, TheCourier-Mail and The Advertiser.

His characters, Dame Eda Everage and Sir Les Patterson are prominent in the ad, created by firm Archibald Williams, and there is a cameo by model Jennifer Hawkins. It launched yesterday and will run for eight weeks on social, digital, television and print.

[VTRacing]

Both are free links.
But both lead to a paywall

Weird. You're right, but I managed to read the article via Google searching.

[Montey]

Always good to see unbiased comments about media bias...

Humphries’ relationship with The Australian began 51 years ago, soon after the newspaper was launched and Humphries wrote a regular column in it.
...
After a long history with News Corp, Humphries agreed to be part of News Corp’s advertising campaign to promote the tablet and mobile editions of the metropolitan newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, TheCourier-Mail and The Advertiser.

His characters, Dame Eda Everage and Sir Les Patterson are prominent in the ad, created by firm Archibald Williams, and there is a cameo by model Jennifer Hawkins. It launched yesterday and will run for eight weeks on social, digital, television and print.

Yeah, the 2nd half of the "article" was not well placed to assist Humphries' point (i.e. it undermined the integrity of the article's alleged main point). But, at the least it serves as a clearly understood comment from a former, regular contributor to the ABC regarding its position within the political spectrum.

Is it just me, or does that 'story' read like an ad for the Australian?

Yep, it started as a critique of the ABC by Humphries and became a puff-piece for The Australian.... Author and/or Editor screwed the pooch in that sense.

[pab]

But, at the least it serves as a clearly understood comment from a former, regular contributor to the ABC regarding its position within the political spectrum.

Or demonstrates what he's prepared to say if he's paid enough? Honestly, all that really shows is his position within the political spectrum.

[Montey]

But, at the least it serves as a clearly understood comment from a former, regular contributor to the ABC regarding its position within the political spectrum.

Or demonstrates what he's prepared to say if he's paid enough? Honestly, all that really shows is his position within the political spectrum.

It might do that or it might not.

That sort of analysis means that we can associate anyone else's comment with any other nefarious interpretation we like.

How do we know that your comments aren't just because your receiving social media payments from an anti The Australian interest group?

Here's an idea, lets go for some more constructive contribution than just "I don't agree with them, so they must be ethically bankrupted."

[norbs]

it would be a rare person who couldn't be bought I'd reckon.

I wonder what Barry McKenzie would say?

I would expect a lot of a persons view on bias depends on where they sit on the political/social spectrum. Reading the Bolt piece this morning, I can't say there is much in there that I would agree with. But I know people who think that way, and they aren't idiots. One person got seriously pissed off when I called him a racist. His point was that he hates Muslims, not a race of people. Religist? is that a thing?

[Jamo]

He'd be more bigot than racist Norbs.

[Montey]

His point was that he hates Muslims, not a race of people. Religist? is that a thing?

(This is sidetracking the thread a bit, but...)

I think this is one of the great failures of the "Middle East Debate" conducted outside of the Arab community; the distinction between Arabs & Muslims, the distinction between radical Muslims and mainstream Muslims, and the recognition that there are Arabs who are Christian, Aethiest, Agnostic, and other religious subscribers.

I know a number of people who hate "Muslims", but when pressed they don't actually have a problem with the people (Arabs), or the Islamic faith (Muslims), its the radicalised minorities who catch the eye of the media that they actually hate.

[ysu]

I reckon the radicals are pretty cleverly (and with some success) trying to apply the "divide and conquer" rule - alienating their faith they're creating a rift that breeds more hate. It's a twisted sort of cleverness, sadly. Still, it works to the level where the one-in-a-thousand religious idiot will buy in. As many muslims there are around the world, that's all they need to grow their army. I just don't know what their end game is. They can't seriously think this method will lead to anything good, anything built that can stand. Or can it? Land acquired in wars usually remained in hands of the conqueror.

[Montey]

Digging up an old thread, but this is relevant and by someone who is very qualified to comment on the subject (watch his other videos to confirm this):

[Cursed]

So journalists are feeling the pointy end of the capitalist eutopia that so many other industries have felt. Your product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it and you can only hope to get paid for it if the person/group with the purse strings can't find someone cheaper to do it than you. And to think that this might have actual societal impacts? Shocking.

[Montey]