Back to the basics: what determines the reliability of a media source or an individual story, and is it possible to give an objective reliability scor

[Jimmy Higgins]

How to tell if your news isn't biased:

- You are listening to NPR or watching PBS (or CBC/BBC).

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Oh boo <expletive deleted> hoo. Do you care to bring up actual substantive evidence that NPR is not a good portal for news?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of my post where I claimed NPR is not a good portal for news. Point it out for us all, will you?

Oh... so you were just passing gas, metaphorically then?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We had real news in Walter Cronkite days and it all went away when Reagan discontinued the "fairness doctrine". The news actually worked back then and we need the "fairness doctrine" back again today. We also need to de-monopolize media and break them up into smaller pieces using anti trust regulation.

I have a somewhat different idea on news:

Shares in a news company can only be owned by individuals, market index funds or non-competing news companies. Those who are not news organizations but wish to present news must contract it out--and any one source can only be used once within a broadcast area.

I disagree on the fairness doctrine--that assumes there are equal sides.

 

[RVonse]

We had real news in Walter Cronkite days and it all went away when Reagan discontinued the "fairness doctrine". The news actually worked back then and we need the "fairness doctrine" back again today. We also need to de-monopolize media and break them up into smaller pieces using anti trust regulation.

I have a somewhat different idea on news:

Shares in a news company can only be owned by individuals, market index funds or non-competing news companies. Those who are not news organizations but wish to present news must contract it out--and any one source can only be used once within a broadcast area.

I disagree on the fairness doctrine--that assumes there are equal sides.

Are you old enough to remember Walter Cronkite giving the evening news? I am. Say what you will, but what Cronkite gave us back then was so far ahead and balanced from the crap we get today as to not even be comparable. Neither conservatives or liberals back then gave any thought whatsoever to calling Cronkite "fake news". Everyone considered Cronkite to be fair and balanced.

The news worked back then and it can work again. By bringing back just exactly the same formula.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a somewhat different idea on news:

Shares in a news company can only be owned by individuals, market index funds or non-competing news companies. Those who are not news organizations but wish to present news must contract it out--and any one source can only be used once within a broadcast area.

I disagree on the fairness doctrine--that assumes there are equal sides.

Are you old enough to remember Walter Cronkite giving the evening news? I am. Say what you will, but what Cronkite gave us back then was so far ahead and balanced from the crap we get today as to not even be comparable. Neither conservatives or liberals back then gave any thought whatsoever to calling Cronkite "fake news". Everyone considered Cronkite to be fair and balanced.

The news worked back then and it can work again. By bringing back just exactly the same formula.

The problem is you can't bring back the same formula. There are two problems: Far more focus on eyeballs and the much faster news cycle.

 

[bilby]

Are you old enough to remember Walter Cronkite giving the evening news? I am. Say what you will, but what Cronkite gave us back then was so far ahead and balanced from the crap we get today as to not even be comparable. Neither conservatives or liberals back then gave any thought whatsoever to calling Cronkite "fake news". Everyone considered Cronkite to be fair and balanced.

The news worked back then and it can work again. By bringing back just exactly the same formula.

The problem is you can't bring back the same formula. There are two problems: Far more focus on eyeballs and the much faster news cycle.

Neither of these are laws of nature.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have a somewhat different idea on news:

Shares in a news company can only be owned by individuals, market index funds or non-competing news companies. Those who are not news organizations but wish to present news must contract it out--and any one source can only be used once within a broadcast area.

I disagree on the fairness doctrine--that assumes there are equal sides.

Are you old enough to remember Walter Cronkite giving the evening news? I am. Say what you will, but what Cronkite gave us back then was so far ahead and balanced from the crap we get today as to not even be comparable. Neither conservatives or liberals back then gave any thought whatsoever to calling Cronkite "fake news". Everyone considered Cronkite to be fair and balanced.

The news worked back then and it can work again. By bringing back just exactly the same formula.

Just to correct your ignorant use of the term "fake news" as the reich wing is using it.

Fake News: Trump said in the late 90s that he'd never consider running as a Republican because that was the party of stupid.

Any perceived bias isn't "fake news".

 

[TV and credit cards]

We had real news in Walter Cronkite days and it all went away when Reagan discontinued the "fairness doctrine". The news actually worked back then and we need the "fairness doctrine" back again today. We also need to de-monopolize media and break them up into smaller pieces using anti trust regulation.

The only argument for the "fairness doctrine" was access to news. With cable and now the internet, that argument is even weaker now.

Are you old enough to remember Walter Cronkite giving the evening news? I am. Say what you will, but what Cronkite gave us back then was so far ahead and balanced from the crap we get today as to not even be comparable. Neither conservatives or liberals back then gave any thought whatsoever to calling Cronkite "fake news". Everyone considered Cronkite to be fair and balanced.

The news worked back then and it can work again. By bringing back just exactly the same formula.

How were we to know if Walter was reporting fake news? He was pretty much it as far as world news went. I don't even remember who the other guy was.
And that's the way it was.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is bias always bad?

Since there will always be people who disagree, who should be the arbitrator of what and who is biased?

 

[fromderinside]

Is bias always bad?

Since there will always be people who disagree, who should be the arbitrator of what and who is biased?

The point of news is to inform. All persons are biased so it is important that methods be in place to remove as much bias as possible from the news. Methods like two sources, two reporters, an editor who isn't vested in a story, etc, are devices used to that end.

It isn't really possible to argue that because people have different points of view that bias be ignored. Assuming or permitting bias removes the notion of validity and truth from the story because it can be said everybody does it making it propaganda or even fake news. Papers do have reputations as either conservative, liberal, communist, christian, etc. However the news they present , if it reflects that bias, doesn't permit the reader to form her own opinion based on the evidence in print. Most good papers reserve obvious bias to the editorial pages and advertising.

If one wants to build a hierarchy of validity one starts with those who are open and provide evidence in a structured and repeatable manner. New papers and news casts tend to adhere close to those principles for news because doing so provides a basis for delivering truthful and accurate information upon which anyon can make use of those 'facts' as part of their understanding of what is going on in the world.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is bias always bad?

Since there will always be people who disagree, who should be the arbitrator of what and who is biased?

The point of news is to inform. All persons are biased so it is important that methods be in place to remove as much bias as possible from the news. Methods like two sources, two reporters, an editor who isn't vested in a story, etc, are devices used to that end.

It isn't really possible to argue that because people have different points of view that bias be ignored. Assuming or permitting bias removes the notion of validity and truth from the story because it can be said everybody does it making it propaganda or even fake news. Papers do have reputations as either conservative, liberal, communist, christian, etc. However the news they present , if it reflects that bias, doesn't permit the reader to form her own opinion based on the evidence in print. Most good papers reserve obvious bias to the editorial pages and advertising.

If one wants to build a hierarchy of validity one starts with those who are open and provide evidence in a structured and repeatable manner. New papers and news casts tend to adhere close to those principles for news because doing so provides a basis for delivering truthful and accurate information upon which anyon can make use of those 'facts' as part of their understanding of what is going on in the world.

If you were a reporter, how would you have covered the funerals of the nine members of the prayer meeting at Mother Emanuel who were killed by Dylann Roof?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How to tell if your news isn't biased:

- You are listening to NPR or watching PBS (or CBC/BBC).

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Do you have a link to the interview?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you can't bring back the same formula. There are two problems: Far more focus on eyeballs and the much faster news cycle.

Neither of these are laws of nature.

Please explain the relevance.

 

[bilby]

Neither of these are laws of nature.

Please explain the relevance.

That which can be achieved within the constraint of the laws of nature is not unachievable. Both the focus on eyeballs, and the rate of the news cycle are artifacts that humans can, if they so desire, control.

 

[fromderinside]

If you were a reporter, how would you have covered the funerals of the nine members of the prayer meeting at Mother Emanuel who were killed by Dylann Roof?

This would be a somber description, a memorial. Prayer meeting covered from each person's orientation and detailed review of ongoing meeting. Individual histories of the dead, well researched. Families described in detail by family members and friends. Very little mention of Roof beyond naming him and simply, without comment, quoting statements he made around their deaths spoken by those there who weren't killed followed by family member forgiveness statements.

We can make points without tinting comments with biased remarks surrounding narratives. After all it's a funeral story, not a murder story.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you were a reporter, how would you have covered the funerals of the nine members of the prayer meeting at Mother Emanuel who were killed by Dylann Roof?

This would be a somber description, a memorial. Prayer meeting covered from each person's orientation and detailed review of ongoing meeting. Individual histories of the dead, well researched. Families described in detail by family members and friends. Very little mention of Roof beyond naming him and simply, without comment, quoting statements he made around their deaths spoken by those there who weren't killed followed by family member forgiveness statements.

We can make points without tinting comments with biased remarks surrounding narratives. After all it's a funeral story, not a murder story.

But ignoring Roof could bring charges of bias. The Somber tone of the article infers a reverence for the dead, also could be seen as biased.

My point being, we are social creature with a somewhat shared moral code. That which goes against the code will generally be seen as bad and that which fallows the code be seen as good. the best any of us hope for in an honest statement of any stnance a reporter has, and then having that reporter be as fair as possible. But bias will always not only be seen in whatever you do, but also actually be there.

 

[ronburgundy]

How to tell if your news isn't biased:

- You are listening to NPR or watching PBS (or CBC/BBC).

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Call him on what exactly? What were his exact words and how exactly was he making blatantly and objectively false statements that the interviewer should have called him on?

 

[LordKiran]

This would be a somber description, a memorial. Prayer meeting covered from each person's orientation and detailed review of ongoing meeting. Individual histories of the dead, well researched. Families described in detail by family members and friends. Very little mention of Roof beyond naming him and simply, without comment, quoting statements he made around their deaths spoken by those there who weren't killed followed by family member forgiveness statements.

We can make points without tinting comments with biased remarks surrounding narratives. After all it's a funeral story, not a murder story.

But ignoring Roof could bring charges of bias. The Somber tone of the article infers a reverence for the dead, also could be seen as biased.

My point being, we are social creature with a somewhat shared moral code. That which goes against the code will generally be seen as bad and that which fallows the code be seen as good. the best any of us hope for in an honest statement of any stnance a reporter has, and then having that reporter be as fair as possible. But bias will always not only be seen in whatever you do, but also actually be there.

So what? Bias isn't the problem. The problem is that most news stories are directed to fit and forward a certain narrative.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But ignoring Roof could bring charges of bias. The Somber tone of the article infers a reverence for the dead, also could be seen as biased.

My point being, we are social creature with a somewhat shared moral code. That which goes against the code will generally be seen as bad and that which fallows the code be seen as good. the best any of us hope for in an honest statement of any stnance a reporter has, and then having that reporter be as fair as possible. But bias will always not only be seen in whatever you do, but also actually be there.

So what? Bias isn't the problem. The problem is that most news stories are directed to fit and forward a certain narrative.

Yeah, and?

Everyone subscribes to a narrative and everyone is biased or given to favor their chosen narrative. We all try to fit our world into what we already understand and we measure the events of that world by what we believe to be right and righteous and real. Now some of us happen to have chosen correctly what is right and righteous and the rest of you are anywhere from mistaken to deluded.

 

[LordKiran]

So what? Bias isn't the problem. The problem is that most news stories are directed to fit and forward a certain narrative.

Yeah, and?

There is no 'and'. That was a complete thought.

Everyone subscribes to a narrative and everyone is biased or given to favor their chosen narrative. We all try to fit our world into what we already understand and we measure the events of that world by what we believe to be right and righteous and real. Now some of us happen to have chosen correctly what is right and righteous and the rest of you are anywhere from mistaken to deluded.

Having victims and family members give their account is not creating the story to fit a specific narrative.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Is bias always bad?

Since there will always be people who disagree, who should be the arbitrator of what and who is biased?

Bias isn't always bad, but there are some emerging trends in professional journalism that are contributing to the deterioration of the profession that ought to be corrected sooner rather than later.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/507111963/beyond-fake-news-2016s-most-disruptive-media-moments

NPR TV Critic Eric Deggans:

"Issue #2: Bias and Credibility. Critics have accused some mainstream media outlets of political bias favoring liberals, but I think the biases which most affect mainstream journalism are different. They include a bias toward being the first to report a story, particularly if it has a big public impact; a bias toward ratings and revenue; a bias toward celebrity, conflict and scandal. Any of these biases can cause big problems if left unchecked."

aa