Is there politically neutral journalism? -

[MW 002]

Most media outlets tend to have some political leaning one way or another- Huffington Post being a notorious example of being extremely left leaning and Fox News being really right leaning. So far the Globe and Mail has been the only news outlet that I've found that at least tries to be more neutral when it comes to reporting current events (but even GAM at times slips and shows some political bias).

So what I'm wondering is, does non biased journalism exist at all or is having some bias inevitable regardless of the type of news outlet?

 

[Some JERK]

Most media outlets tend to have some political leaning one way or another- Huffington Post being a notorious example of being extremely left leaning and Fox News being really right leaning. So far the Globe and Mail has been the only news outlet that I've found that at least tries to be more neutral when it comes to reporting current events (but even GAM at times slips and shows some political bias).

So what I'm wondering is, does non biased journalism exist at all or is having some bias inevitable regardless of the type of news outlet?

I don't know if you'll ever find truly unbiased media, but sometimes you can find outlets that have less of a dog in the fight than anyone else, and therefore have little reason to spin anything. It depends on what's being reported though. Sometimes BBC and RT coverage of a story puts American media outlets to shame.

 

[Foltest]

No, but a journalist can strive to be more neutral and objective as much as possible. It is the same with among historian, as there is always a fine line between letting your own opinion and the material itself.

 

[Marvin]

To get neutrality, you'll generally need to sample from multiple outlets to get a balanced understanding of what's going on in a given story.

 

[Unseemly and Feral]

I think there are some outlets and some individual journalists that at least try to be even handed. I think the problem has gotten worse since now that the outlets know they need SENSATIONAl content to draw people in, they slide to one extreme or the other when they realize that's what their audience wants.

 

[JU 199]

Nobody is neutral but retaining objectivity is more important.

 

[AnOminous]

You can't be perfectly objective and be human, but you can have basic respect for facts and try to remain aware of when you are discussing facts and when you are discussing opinions. When I find a source has consistently disregarded, distorted or ignored facts, I generally disregard anything subsequently said by that source.

 

[Ted_Breakfast]

To get neutrality, you'll generally need to sample from multiple outlets to get a balanced understanding of what's going on in a given story.

Sadly, this is getting to be much more difficult to do, because it's getting so that news organizations simply won't report a story at all if it offends their biases. So you basically wind up with a lot of sensationalist news stories not being challenged the way they ought to be.

 

[Mimic]

Humans are inherently biased, but the presentation of facts can and always should be presented in neutral tone. Facts have no alignment, they are just facts. It's how they're spun that leads to biased and twisted media. Of course, spun and twisted media gets ratings, so you'll never actually see anything reported on as unbiased unless the journalist has nothing to lose or gain from it.

 

[An Ounce of Vagina]

You can find neutral reporting if the subject itself is neutral and can't really be slanted either way. A volcanic eruption, for example, either happened or it didn't happen.

 

[Some JERK]

I think there are some outlets and some individual journalists that at least try to be even handed. I think the problem has gotten worse since now that the outlets know they need SENSATIONAl content to draw people in, they slide to one extreme or the other when they realize that's what their audience wants.

That's true, but I think it's even worse than that right now. There's a difference between breathless journalism and just outright being an advocacy group. I think a lot of the so-called "trusted" media totally tipped their hands as far as that goes in this election cycle.

 

[CatParty]

To get neutrality, you'll generally need to sample from multiple outlets to get a balanced understanding of what's going on in a given story.

This all the way. Outside of just streaming cspan all day long, you just got to dig through opinions and see facts. I do however trust mainstream more than alternative news sites because they will punish their reporters when they fabricate news. Brian Williams is a perfect example

 

[Pickle Inspector]

I don't know if you'll ever find truly unbiased media, but sometimes you can find outlets that have less of a dog in the fight than anyone else, and therefore have little reason to spin anything. It depends on what's being reported though. Sometimes BBC and RT coverage of a story puts American media outlets to shame.

The BBC try to stay unbiased but I remember seeing a report that basically found they give more time to whoever is the current party in power, they did the investigation because people on the right found them too left wing and people on the right found them too left wing in their reporting.

There were also complaints that for example during the Brexit they had agreed to give each side equal coverage which after the result lead to the remain side complaining that the brexit side wasn't as qualified so shouldn't have been given equal air time, during the US election all impartiality seemed to be thrown out the window though with Trump where he was treated as a joke and a bigot throughout with the occasional token pro Trump interviewee.

The most impartial journalism is probally something like the Financial Times which focuses on money and business related matters although as you might expect are pro business/globalization.

 

[AnOminous]

You can find neutral reporting if the subject itself is neutral and can't really be slanted either way. A volcanic eruption, for example, either happened or it didn't happen.

Crazies will slant even that, claiming that the volcano has racist implications, or was a punishment from God for men sticking their willies into each other.

 

[TheImportantFart]

David Pakman is actually a damn good objective interviewer/reporter, even though he leans quite far left. He's very good at asking the right questions to draw out the facts/the person he's interviewing's personality. It's funny, a lot of SJWs got mad after his Brianna Wu interview and said that his interviewing style "didn't work" with people like Wu as opposed to right-wingers/white nationalists. No, his interviewing style works perfectly, you guys just can't stand the fact that one of your senpais really is that batshit.

 

[Cosmos]

David Pakman is actually a damn good objective interviewer/reporter, even though he leans quite far left. He's very good at asking the right questions to draw out the facts/the person he's interviewing's personality. It's funny, a lot of SJWs got mad after his Brianna Wu interview and said that his interviewing style "didn't work" with people like Wu as opposed to right-wingers/white nationalists. No, his interviewing style works perfectly, you guys just can't stand the fact that one of your senpais really is that batshit.

My favorite part of that entire interview was when Brianna finally lost it and shrieked "THIS IS A HIT PIECE!!!!", which rightfully offended David because he was honestly trying to stay neutral and objective. I don't know if I'm misremembering, but I also seem to recall her whining about him bringing Fredrick Brennan Hotwheels on, even though (again, rightfully) wanted to hear both sides of the story.

 

[Xarpho]

My favorite part of that entire interview was when Brianna finally lost it and shrieked "THIS IS A HIT PIECE!!!!", which rightfully offended David because he was honestly trying to stay neutral and objective. I don't know if I'm misremembering, but I also seem to recall her whining about him bringing Fredrick Brennan Hotwheels on, even though (again, rightfully) wanted to hear both sides of the story.

Anyone is going to look sane, neutral, and objective when dealing with a total nutcase. The moment came toward the ending when Pakman was trying to figure out why Brianna cut ties with Milo.

 

[buffaloWildWings]

That's true, but I think it's even worse than that right now. There's a difference between breathless journalism and just outright being an advocacy group. I think a lot of the so-called "trusted" media totally tipped their hands as far as that goes in this election cycle.

Yup, they screwed the pooch this election.
I just try to avoid the echo chamber by deliberately reading publications that I disagree with.

 

[Disgruntled Pupper]

The BBC try to stay unbiased but I remember seeing a report that basically found they give more time to whoever is the current party in power, they did the investigation because people on the right found them too left wing and people on the right found them too left wing in their reporting.

There were also complaints that for example during the Brexit they had agreed to give each side equal coverage which after the result lead to the remain side complaining that the brexit side wasn't as qualified so shouldn't have been given equal air time, during the US election all impartiality seemed to be thrown out the window though with Trump where he was treated as a joke and a bigot throughout with the occasional token pro Trump interviewee.

The most impartial journalism is probally something like the Financial Times which focuses on money and business related matters although as you might expect are pro business/globalization.

The BBC also does things like come to America and put a girl on the air claiming that her mother eats rats and that poor Americans eat "ketchup soup"- possibly while drinking snow coffee.

The BBC may do decent reporting most of the time, but man, when they decide to make a sensationalist propaganda piece they make the Sun and the Daily Mail look like amateurs.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

The BBC also does things like come to America and put a girl on the air claiming that her mother eats rats and that poor Americans eat "ketchup soup"- possibly while drinking snow coffee.

The BBC may do decent reporting most of the time, but man, when they decide to make a sensationalist propaganda piece they make the Sun and the Daily Mail look like amateurs.

The best journalist on the BBC right now in my opinion is Andrew Neil, he's some of his latest work: