A less bias media.

[ray245]

I've been actively visiting alot of political forums the fast few days, and I've saw many people debating about the issue in tibet.

Many mainland chinese is rather...uphappy with how the western media view tibet.

When some chinese pointed out on the forums that tibet government before the PRC came into control over tibet isn't a place where human rights is respected either, like slavery still being legal in some sense.

Many people immediately attack those posters that their source is totally unreliable and the pictures that the chinese has provided isn't tibetians at all.

Many people on those forums fail to realize that just because western media is a free media, it does not mean they are not bias at all.


Moreover, I'm sure many people on Sd.net knows how bias Fox news can be at times (well almost all the time) .

And given that even if a media is bias, most viewers cannot distinguish if the news report is bias.

Hence I'm asking if there is a way to ensure that a media can be less bias in reporting political news. That it is able to report news that does not serve in their nation best interest at times.

If a free media will only report news and facts that serve in their national interest, portray events that may misled the general public into ignoring the ugly aspect of friendly nation, smear and uglified a rivial nation and neglect facts that does not serve in the interest of their nation at times, what is the use for a free media?

So is there any way to ensure that a media can have a more netural tone and political standpoint as compared to what we see today?

Well this applies to every nation in the world of course, including singapore and US.

So is there anything else I need to include in the OP in case this thread gets locked again...

[Hamel]

My brain wants to give itself a stroke when reading your usage of bias. You're forgetting the ed to make it an adjective.

[ray245]

Well...I won't say my english is good at all, although I do appreciate your attemps to help.

Sigh...I do hope that my english can be improved in the short term...

[gizmojumpjet]

You can't eliminate bias in reporting because it's a part of human nature. Sure you could, for example, have some sort of commission or something that evaluates news broadcasts and punished perceived biases, but such a body would infringe on free speech in violation of the first amendment.

Another option is the laughably titled "fairness doctrine" where you force a given media outlet to present "both sides of the story," but compelled speech can never be free speech, therefore this too would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Rather than trying to dream up ways to eliminate biased news reporting, just try to recognize bias, point it out when you see it, and make your own decisions after weighing the facts.

[Superman]

Try reading... you know, like books and stuff.

[Hamel]

Well...I won't say my english is good at all, although I do appreciate your attemps to help.

Sigh...I do hope that my english can be improved in the short term...

You have an excuse, though. Native english speakers tend to make more of these mistakes than the non-natives.

Anyway, I'm a bit more inclined to take the Tibetans at their word~ there must be a reason for the Chinese censoring information coming out of that area. They're not up to any good.

[ray245]

You can't eliminate bias in reporting because it's a part of human nature. Sure you could, for example, have some sort of commission or something that evaluates news broadcasts and punished perceived biases, but such a body would infringe on free speech in violation of the first amendment.

Another option is the laughably titled "fairness doctrine" where you force a given media outlet to present "both sides of the story," but compelled speech can never be free speech, therefore this too would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Rather than trying to dream up ways to eliminate biased news reporting, just try to recognize bias, point it out when you see it, and make your own decisions after weighing the facts.

The problem is even if you manage to notice any biased views yourself, this does not mean that the general public or the majority can have the ability to do the same.

But personally I find that a neutral media is better than a media that operate under free speech. Free speech for media is important because there is a need to critize (spelling?) the government when they are in the wrong.

But without a 'neutral standpoint' law, media can still be abused to highlights the stuff government wants the public to agree on, and which stuff to be less highlighted.


But perhaps a UN comission could be set up to do a research on media is considered to be politcally neutral.
A committee that has enough influence to attack the credibility of any media outlet.

Just my few cents.

[K. A. Pital]

Some sort of "Journalist Integrity Commitee" which would run and check facts, and if it founds a fraud, expose it?

That would be a good idea; this Commitee should not have as much "power" over journalism, as it needs publicity.

Say, some sort of "monthly press review" on a few channels for it.

The funding will be a bitch though. If the UN funds it and the funding is independent from member states, i.e. a pool funding, that could work.

[gizmojumpjet]

The problem is even if you manage to notice any biased views yourself, this does not mean that the general public or the majority can have the ability to do the same.

I know it's in vogue to log into the internet and hurfblurf about how stupid most people are, but I really think you're not giving people enough credit.

But personally I find that a neutral media is better than a media that operate under free speech. Free speech for media is important because there is a need to critize (spelling?) the government when they are in the wrong.

But without a 'neutral standpoint' law, media can still be abused to highlights the stuff government wants the public to agree on, and which stuff to be less highlighted.

But it's outright impossible to have a neutral "media" and any attempts to make it neutral trample the right of free speech in a completely unjustifiable way. You simply can't have a complete lack of bias; it's not humanly possible. The people put in charge of enforcing a neutral point of view will eventually allow their own biases, which they surely have, to color their judgment and actions.

How far do you propose taking your draconian infringement on personal freedoms? Are you just going to target the big networks that use the public airwaves? Because that is about the only way you're going to get any fairness doctrine past a Constitutional test, and even that's pretty iffy now. But say you pulled that off, just for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, cable news networks don't use the public airwaves, nor does the internet media. Are you going to sacrifice bloggers, citizen journalism, and smaller media outlets, such as DailyKos or Democratic Underground, on the altar of bias free journalism (which is a pipe dream in any event)?

But perhaps a UN comission could be set up to do a research on media is considered to be politcally neutral.
A committee that has enough influence to attack the credibility of any media outlet.

Just my few cents.

Yeah, what an excellent idea, let the UN solve the problem with a commission of appointees and bureaucratic functionaries!

Please.

Here's a better idea: Let people say what they whatever they want to say, like we do now, and let other people judge for themselves whether they agree or not. People really don't need some UN or Federal commission telling them that journalists (all of them) and networks (all of them) are biased.

[K. A. Pital]

If people are biased, that's one thing. If they lie, there ought to be lawsuits at the very least. The media should report facts, not report lies which it did, and often does.

Exposing bias isnt' necessary (most people are aware of it on some level) - exposing outright lies is necessary in my view.

[ray245]

Well the thread about nuclear reactors has got me thinking.

Isn't a biased media just as dangerous as compared to propoganda? Because with propoganda, people can accuse the media of being wrong. But with a unfair media reporting certain truth, and neglecting other facts. People cannot accuse the media of being wrong, yet at the same time, it can misdirect the people's view, and most people can't distinguish if the media is biased.

As long as media keep focusing on chernoybl instead of other power generator diaster, they can easily paint a picture that nuclear generation is a very bad thing.

Because the need to let people know both sides of a story can be better than free speech at times. And having both sides of the story known does not really infringe on free speech in a bad way. It is more important to let people fully understand the sistuation as compared to simply letting people blocking measures that can benefit the world or their country.

If free speech can be abused at times, if it wasn't, we won't be seeing christian creationist trying to argue that teaching creation is science.

After all, person can be smart, but people are dumb.