Is there an unbiased newspaper ?

[modeller]

I enjoyed watching Oneeyedvic 's video on the Daily Mail and I asked myself :

1. Does biased reporting serve a purpose ?

2. Is there any newspaper which is unbiased ?

[R1Geezer]

1. Any reporting is about selling papers, they print what the customers want to read, it serves no purpose to society directly but serves to generate revenue for the company,

2. No. it is human nature, impossible to get unbiased reporting.

[jno]

all papers make editorial decisions about what news their readers will want to know about. That's not necessarily the same as bias. The Telegraph, for instance, is old-school Tory and it won't tell you about oppression of the poor in Benin, whereas the Guardian will. But both newspapers, once they have chosen their news stories will report them straight.

The Mail and the Express, on the other hand will routinely omit one side of the story in orde to tug at your heartstrings and prove that the country is going to hell in a handbasket under a communist regime.

As well as news, all papers have opinion columns and features. One reason I prefer the Guardian is that they have a wide range of columns written by people who don't take the Guardian's own editorial line. The Mail's columnists, on the other hand, all sound the same. That may be 'biased' but it's not the same as 'biased reporting'.

[VHG]

Last week I watched the budget on TV then, watched the generally adult informed debate on TV afterwards.

Next day I went to the supermarket and glanced at all the newspaper headlines and could not believe how all the "red tops" had reported it, in childish and biased headlines.

The Daily Star had "Darling kicks us in the Ballotts" and the Mail or Express had "Darling steals from poor to pay the rich" or some such.

Only the Mirror was very pro labour in their headline (cant remember the details).

All the others (red tops and Telegraph) were VERY anti Darling / Labour.

But what got me most was the childish and biased reporting.

I think the newspapers realise their time has come and they have a dwindling future so need to get more and more extreme to sell papers.

[VHG]

>Is there any newspaper which is unbiased ?

While I never read it, wasn't that the point of the Independant, hence the name.

[jno]

it was when it started up, VHG; but of course it still had to decide who its readers might be and make news judgments accordingly. It's now owned by an ex-KGB billionaire

http://www.guardian.c...ent-alexander-lebedev

I have no idea what this might mean for its editorial policy.

[modeller]

From what you say there is quite a difference between biased and one-sided.

Looking on the good side I suppose a one-sided report does highlight issues which brings about debate. Here on AB we do debate subjects that would otherwise not get a mention.

[Kromovaracun]

I can't stand any of the British daily press.

Biased reporting is inevitable - it's impossible to be 'unbiased', but you can at least have standards about how you go about it. There's also different shades of reliability - The Mail, Express, red-tops etc. have a level of reliability roughly approximate to a man in the pub, while the better papers do admittedly score higher.

While it's certainly still biased, I can't reccommend 'The Economist' highly enough. It's well-researched, decently written and also has a genuine level of integrity and journalistic standards - they quite frequently publish qualified attacks on their articles, for instance. It's also completely upfront about what it's guiding principles are, and doesn't ruthlessly subordinate its analysis to them (for instance they argued that bailing out the banks was the best option on the table while acknowledging how undesirable it was very early in the crisis - and it frequently admits it was wrong to support the Iraq war).

'The Week' is good just as a basic overview of stuff that's happened but it does basically repeat what papers have been saying across the week. 'Prospect' is also an interesting weekly that genuinely tries to take a view from both sides on several issues, but its coverage can be a bit esoteric.

[jno]

But is it possible that you admire the Economist because you agree with it, Kromovaracun? (Serious question, I'm not having a dig at you or at it.) I like the Guardian because it tells me things I want to know - along with vast amounts I don't, mostly football; but that's the case with all papers - but is happy to offer me opposing viewpoints; it seeks to get its facts right and tells me if and when it's got them wrong. I feel that's as much as I can ask of a daily paper.

[notaclueyet]

jno,I find The"Daily Mirror" like that.

[Justincider]

I find the Daily Sport pretty much unbiased.

[jake-the-peg]

I rather enjoy the occasional scoot through Le monde on line it was particularly interesting when all the Lisbon treaty business was going on to see the country through foreign eyes.

I'm particularly looking forward to what they make of the election

[AB Editor]

Not a paper, but if you wanted a great many news feeds pulled into one place, this is it:

http://www.onenewspage.com/

This is kind of like having unbiased choice of biased papers?

Sadly I don't think they have all the papers/newsfeeds out there.

Spare Ed

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// whereas the Guardian will.///

/// One reason I prefer the Guardian ///

Don't suppose you could be a tinny, tinny, bit bias, could you?

[anotheoldgit]

VHG

/// childish and biased reporting.///

Or daring to be anti-Labour?

[sp1814]

In terms of news reporting, I find The Independent/Independent on Sunday to be the least biased.

I'm basing this on how little it 'editorializes' it's news stories.

The Daily Mail in my opinion is the most biased, because rather than reporting a story 'flat', it uses deliberately provocative adjectives in order to garner a response from it's readship.

And like it or not, it works - it has very healthy sales figures.

[Zeuhl]

The Mail is not presenting 'news' it is presenting entertainment.

As such it pleases an audience by supporting their existing points of view.

Other papers do that though to a lesser extent. i think it's fine as long as it isn't confused with the objective reporting of events.

[Kromovaracun]

jno:

"But is it possible that you admire the Economist because you agree with it, Kromovaracun? (Serious question, I'm not having a dig at you or at it.)"

Yes, that's perfectly possible and I accept that my view of it is slanted due to that (though I do quite regularly read articles in there and disagree with them).

But it's not just its views I admire - it's the integrity it holds. As I say, it's frequently reminded readers that it supported the Iraq war and that it feels it was wrong in hindsight, it publishes detailed critiques of its articles, and also treats its readers with respect. I remember once when I was a subscriber receiving a letter from the regional editor apologizing for late dispatches and offering to reimburse anyone who bought the magazine when it didn't arrive in the mail. That's indicative of a kind of respect for its readers that I admire and I'm really not sure I can imagine in many other publications.

It's also very well-researched and well-argued. If I just agreed with it, I honestly don't think I'd buy it if I thought its standards were poor.

Okay, I'll stop with the metaphorical hand-job now. Honest.

[Gromit]

There is no thing as a unbiased newspaper because every journalist and reader have their own personal likes, dislikes and views. Some newspapers try to be as accurate as possible such as the Independent. Others manipulate, bend, mould any story to fit the demographic of its readers. It tries to please all the time.

The most extreme version of that is undoubtedly the Daily Mail. Though deliberate omission, selective use of the facts and de-intellectualising the story, it manages to pull off a consistent narative of its world view.

Unfortunately, the narative it prefers is doom and gloom, disappointment, mistrust and meanness.

[jno]

aog, I am not tinny (I am made of coated paper), but I read the Guardian (and the Telegraph on Saturdays). I'm not sure if having a preferred paper makes me biased or not; it's probably a matter of definition. I dislike the Mail for the reasons others have underlined: basically, that I can't trust it. Kromovaracun on the other hand trusts the Economist for the reasons he gives, and that makes sense to me: I seldom read it, because I don't read weekly magazines, but I think it's trustworthy.

Ditto the Guardian, because it regularly prints corrections. I don't know if you ever came across the story they printed of the chaiman of Wolverhampton Wanderers saying they had the worst team in the Premier League... only to admit the next day that he'd just been offered a hot drink and had actually said 'We have the worst tea in the Premier League.'

[Gromit]

Jno

You forgot to put LOL at the end.