Let's talk about reporting.

[j1979]

Who determines who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'? A reporters job is to report the facts as he sees them, not make a value judgement about what is right and wrong.

The HEXUS position on your posts is relevant. No judgement was made on whether you were right or wrong. You made a case from the facts as you saw them, others challenged your interpretation.

You claim that the BBC reports are biassed, but the BBC has a (generally deserved) reputation to maintain. You do not, and your posts indicate you have a partisan view. So whose account do you think is the more credible?

I only mentioned it because you picked it up when someone else used it as an example!

However, this is not a discussion about the position in Ukraine, you already have a thread for that.

Sorry when did i say the BBC were biased?

I said they try to be unbiased, which does in fact cause problems, and they given a lot of air time to people who have lied repeatedly on air, and this has mostly gone unchallenged.

They end up trying to show a balanced argument. most are arguments on opinion, but some are arguments based on or against fact. If they want to give air time to these people that argue against fact there should be someone to challenge them.

I watched 2 debates on BBC news 24 with Alexander Nekrassov, he lied and either through lack of knowledge or interest no one pick him up on his inaccuracies and lies.

The whole situation with the country involved has truly opened my eyes to the BBC and the "experts" they choose to show. Even before the current crisis, I used to have news24 on all the time, never really reading between the lines. Never again will I be duped by the BBC.

Like it was mentioned about Hexus vs BBC on technology, you will notice the somewhat novice "experts" they have to discuss technology and how they frequently get it wrong.

for example. I recall last year the BBC had a expert that said "Crypto currency was invented by a man from Japan called Satoshi Nakamoto" well, most people know that's not true. It's factually wrong, not just opinion.

Sometimes these are innocent reporting mistakes by generic "experts", like the example above, but some factual inaccuracies are deliberate, sometimes vitriolic and more often then not go unchallenged. This is my point.

The BBC is not biased by default, they try not to be, and that model of reporting is seriously flawed at many a level.

[wasabi]

Who determines who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'? A reporters job is to report the facts as he sees them, not make a value judgement about what is right and wrong.

The BBC work around it by deciding the topics for discussion. If they endlessly talk something up the public ends up believing there is no smoke without fire. Facts are not important.

Or there is the pointlessly aggressive interview technique which does nothing but establish the alpha male status of the interviewer. For example John Humphrys who simply rudely interrupts interviewees with an endless barrage of ' people think you should resign, why don't you resign?'. then no matter what the reply, a variation on 'people think you're guilty, why don't you resign?' Over and over. The guy is a disgusting sham of an interviewer. Good parody here.

[peterb]

The BBC work around it by deciding the topics for discussion. If they endlessly talk something up the public ends up believing there is no smoke without fire. Facts are not important.

Or there is the pointlessly aggressive interview technique which does nothing but establish the alpha male status of the interviewer. For example John Humphrys who simply rudely interrupts interviewees with an endless barrage of ' people think you should resign, why don't you resign?'. then no matter what the reply, a variation on 'people think you're guilty, why don't you resign?' Over and over. The guy is a disgusting sham of an interviewer. Good parody here.

But that is the difference between straightforward reporting reporting and the 'interpretation". And should statements by politicians b challenged by the press, or should that b the function of the opposition?

Whee there can be bias is in selective reporting of topics, although with such a large free press, most topics will be covered with different degrees of emphasis - bearing in mind that most of the 'free' press is privately owned, and the object of most media publishers is to make money.

[TheAnimus]

I didn't want this to be about neutrality of reporting, all reporting will inherently be biased in some way, but more how the economics and crowd sourcing of news will shape the future.

The smart phone is so portable, such a useful radio device, with video etc, it's the fact that as a result people are virtually everywhere, with a device capable of capturing and transmitting what is going on. If you think of iconic moments from history, most of them require pictures, the horror of a young vietnamese girl running from napalam will forever be burned into many peoples mind, the fact is now, more and more people are in the right place, at the right time to show what is going on (should they so wish).

Sadly I think we've crossed away from this topic, I was nervous about choosing that vice example, because someone knows better than everyone else because they are all wrong and lapping up propaganda. This isn't meant to be about that. There is seldom a 'right' way of showing anything.

[j1979]

I didn't want this to be about neutrality of reporting, all reporting will inherently be biased in some way, but more how the economics and crowd sourcing of news will shape the future.

The smart phone is so portable, such a useful radio device, with video etc, it's the fact that as a result people are virtually everywhere, with a device capable of capturing and transmitting what is going on. If you think of iconic moments from history, most of them require pictures, the horror of a young vietnamese girl running from napalam will forever be burned into many peoples mind, the fact is now, more and more people are in the right place, at the right time to show what is going on (should they so wish).

Sadly I think we've crossed away from this topic, I was nervous about choosing that vice example, because someone knows better than everyone else because they are all wrong and lapping up propaganda. This isn't meant to be about that. There is seldom a 'right' way of showing anything.

Your hobby seems to be playing full time devils advocate. From the very first thread I wrote on hexus back in 2007 you have continued in the same vein.

Why did you use the vice example, if you were "nervous" ? It would have only taken you 30 seconds to find another link.

If you don't want me to point out holes in your Donetsk link, then choose a different example. But if you care to actually listen to what people are saying in the interviews, it tells a lot, and you may actually change your opinion and value these reporters. This woman's words tell the story of the average persons feelings, and shows this form of reporting for what it is, quality, raw, and risky reporting.

Watch From 8.27


Not the high quality presentation yet low quality content we get spoon feed on the BBC.

You won't get an interview like that on BBC, because they are just not that good at reporting. As the BBC are well known, their reporters in any situation get taken to report on a story the way the powers that be want it to be portrayed.

The vice model is one of the best and rawest forms of reporting and is the most honest, with integrity.

I applaud these people that risk their lives so we can have an inside view, not just the well presented view. Pulitzer prize? nope! Better than the BBC and some other mainstream media? infinitely!

You write a comment, and then when you get a reaction, you then want to dictated the course of the thread away from the vice example.

Why write the little comment...!?
"Vice for instance, is a, erm, yes, let's call it source, but they have had some guy being a bit of a **** on the ground"

Long live vice because, he risked his life you give you an inside view, I haven't seen that happen on the BBC.

You think it's a bad thing, that this anyone with a phone / camera can get the shot of a lifetime or do an interview or become a "have a go" journalist. I think it's a very very good thing. All the shots of September 11th 2001 are etched in my mind, all of with were amateur / tourist footage.

Ohh and in case you didn't already know the BBC have been toying with the idea of moving to vices model for the last few years. They are thinking of doing it to save money ironically, the bad news is they will still edit it down to the 10 second soundbites that mean nothing and are always out of context.

[pauldarkside]

You won't get an interview like that on BBC, because they are just not that good at reporting. As the BBC are well known, their reporters in any situation get taken to report on a story the way the powers that be want it to be portrayed.

The vice model is one of the best and rawest forms of reporting and is the most honest, with integrity.

I applaud these people that risk their lives so we can have an inside view, not just the well presented view. Pulitzer prize? nope! Better than the BBC and some other mainstream media? infinitely!

You write a comment, and then when you get a reaction, you then want to dictated the course of the thread away from the vice example.

Why write the little comment...!?
"Vice for instance, is a, erm, yes, let's call it source, but they have had some guy being a bit of a **** on the ground"

Long live vice because, he risked his life you give you an inside view, I haven't seen that happen on the BBC.

Think you might have your blinkers on. The Beeb do have reporters who put their lives on the line and have done so for more years than I can remember. They're not all following an autocue. Here's two recent incidents.

Frank Gardner:

On 6 June 2004, while reporting from Al-Suwaidi,[10] a suburb of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Gardner was shot six times and seriously injured in an attack by al-Qaeda sympathisers.[11] His colleague, Irish cameraman Simon Cumbers, was shot dead. Of the bullets which hit Gardner in his torso (others passed through his shoulder and leg) most missed his major organs but one hit his spinal nerves and he was left partly paralysed in the legs and dependent on a wheelchair. The Saudi Arabian government had forced Gardner to use official minders, who ran away once the firing started. The Saudi government promised compensation but in the end they never paid

Jeremy Bowen:

On 5 July 2013, while reporting for the BBC the protests in Egypt regarding the former president Morsi, he was shot in the head with shotgun pellets. He escaped any major injury and was taken away by his colleagues and bandaged up.

[TheAnimus]

j1979, you completely missed the point. Completely and utterly missed the whole point of this thread.

This is why I was nervous taking such an example, but I thought it a very good one, because it shows someone clearly out of their depth, with little or no understanding of whats going on, getting himself in live fire, filming peoples faces when asked not to, videoing the showcase of the wounded person and the difficulty of interacting with the morgues staff.

The backdrop, shouldn't really be an issue.

As a Graham Greene fan, I would have loved to have chosen Vietnam for this, as in a way, the end of the french indochina war, was a time when unknowns were allowed to start penetrating the old boys club of the press. For example Bernard B. Fall wrote such an amazing account of his witness experiences, biased as can be, but it was something that gave an angle which no mainstream press was bothering with at the time. Later people like Frances FitzGerald gave their view again.

Both incredibly biased by their ideals. Both incredibly good insights.

But this is my point, now we get so much more, we get videos, pictures with very accurate time and location stamps (GPS!) transmitted instantly. We require less on someone to have an understanding of the situation, think how hard it must have been for BB Fall to be able to get half the information, the movement around, the time it would have then taken for anyone to read his paper, years later his book.

Now we've closed that loop, it's almost instant. It requires less understanding, more just point and shoot.

[TheAnimus]

And, as a freelancer, my professionalism is crucial, critical, imperative. Because, my name is attached to it, and so, therefore, is my reputation. And if I ruin that, or let it get ruined, my career is toast.

So, for any true freelancer, they are generally pretty damn careful about what they say, because a bad reputation puts them out of business. Or it does with reputable media anyway.

This is very true, I guess I was thinking more of the shift to the freelancer who provides the pictures, allowing the editorial staff to make the story.

It comes down to a sense of trust. How much do you trust either an individual, or the reputation and independence of the organisation doing the publishing?

Do you trust the BBC? Or the Mail? Telegraph? Anandtech or Tom's hardware? And so on.

And it's VERY hard to know who to trust, and how much.

This is sort of the beauty of the 'micro-lancer' model, the people who, like the intrepid guy in the video (I didn't realise that word is a swear, but he is a bit a of a twonk.) they are going to be providing more an more perspectives on something. So long as people don't use some kind of weight of material equates to truth logic, this will be very interesting indeed.

News sources will be more like curators, indexers in a way, but with a better intelligence I hope that google musters (google in this respect, I mean to use just popularity, call page rank whatever you like, that is all it is).

They ultimately shall pick and choose the sources they wish, for their editorial line.

[Saracen]

....
They ultimately shall pick and choose the sources they wish, for their editorial line.

...

Isn't that both a strength and a weakness, though?

I mean, first there's the obvious. The prevalence of phones with cameras means there an immenely higher chance of something newsworthy getting photographed, when most of the population in many countries have a camera, and critically, one that's close to being surgically attached to their hand, not at the back of a drawer in the spare bedroom.

Which in turn means editors are both more likely to have pictures available, AND more likely to have a choice of sources. Oh, and not just still, but possibly video, albeit often poor (but improving) quality.

So, if you've got an editor that wants to push an agenda, they have more scope for picking both pictures and sources that suit that agenda.

But, on the other hand, can you trust the images? Were they shot when, and where, they are claimed to have been? If an editor sent a photographer, or uses one he knows, he's far less susceptible to misinformation, accidental or otherwise. And yeah, pictures might have GPS data. Or might not. And even if they do, a sophisticated con, such as by a government, could have faked that data.

So again, I'd suggest, for the reader, there still has to be a large element of trust. Do we trust the editor to TRY to put a balanced view .... which of course can be done in more than one way. It might be "balanced" material from a supposedly independent reporter (so you heed to trust the editor and reporter), or it might come from allowing biased sources, but balancing with sources from the opposite camp. An obvious example would be interviewing both an SNP spokeperson and one from the "Better Together"camp.

And if the editor uses "micro-lancers", do we trust that the editor is both diligent and competent in verifying material? After all, no self-respecting journalist takes everything, or indeed, anything they're told at face value. Critical questions would include :-

- who is supplying the information!
- why?
- agenda?
- is it verifiable from other sources?
- does it hold together with what you know, or are otherwise being told?

Short of each of us personally going to each and every event, veing there at the right time, sooner or later you've got to decide when, where and with whom you're going to extend your trust. Does the "source" have an agenda, is the reporter getting ALL the relevant material, is what he chooses to submit to an editor comprehensive, balanced, competent and verified? Does the editor have multiple sources? Do they cross-verify? Is it balanced? Etc.

And, of course, does the publication have an agenda?

For us, as readers, personally I'm of the opinion that there's ONLY one way to try to get a full and impartial picture of any incident, and that is to consider multiple sources, AND to judge the impartiality and competence of each.

But do you trust yourself to be impartial and objective? After all, most of us have ideas and preconceptions and we tend to trust those more that express views and standpoints that agree with what we already think.

So when you, or I, or anyone here, tries to judge what we make of news on, say, the BBC, we ought not only be trying to decide whether to trust the reporter's professionalism and integrity, and that of the editor, but also our own ability to be coldly, objective and impartial when doing so. A big, indeed very big ask, IMHO.

[TheAnimus]

I think already people have a selection bias with the way they go about gathering information, people often reject things that don't come from a source that aligns with their views, reading only those that do. I call this Guardian syndrome, as it's odd to witness people actively seek out to read something only they agree with.

Online communities often gravitate around certain interests, this is why you find fringe groups that act as if their view is the only valid ones, things like anorexia or even apple products.

As more and more people create 'news source data' I think it is the way that the filtering, the blinkering, the willfull ignoring of sources will work out.

[Top_gun]

Evan Davis and Justin Webb are particular offenders in that respect. Why Ewan avis is on the "Today" team beats me - his claim to fame was hosting "Dragon's den" - an entertainment programme dressed up as financial investment.

Perhaps because Evan Davis is an Economist and has presented a few interesting BBC documentaries such as 'mind the gap'. In that light he is more than just a Dragon's Den presenter and a lot of his views are very thought provoking.

Bias accusations are usually directed to the BBC as a result of them not supporting other people's 'world view'. The Tories are the usual culprits despite having a former Tory as Chairman for the BBC at the time!

[Saracen]

Perhaps because Evan Davis is an Economist and has presented a few interesting BBC documentaries such as 'mind the gap'. In that light he is more than just a Dragon's Den presenter and a lot of his views are very thought provoking.

Bias accusations are usually directed to the BBC as a result of them not supporting other people's 'world view'. The Tories are the usual culprits despite having a former Tory as Chairman for the BBC at the time!

Chairman for the BBC Trust, not the BBC. There's a difference. The Trust, by virtue of the ebabling legislation, is operationally independent of the BBC. It has no role in editorial decisions, and doesn't have the staff for that anyway. It's role is in setting the strategic direction, representing licence-payers and a general oversight of the exectutive board. Overall editorial control comes from the board, headed by the DG, not the Trust or it's chairman (or woman).

[Top_gun]

The Trust is the governing body of the BBC and yes, they're part of the BBC as a sovereign body but independent of the executive board and management. They approve the editorial guidelines for the BBC to follow and investigate the actions of the executive board and failure in editing standards which includes bias news reporting.

[The Hand]

I notice the BBC news channel isn't reporting the massive gun battles involving gunships in Benghazi,Libya at the moment.. even though we Brits were involved in the UN "no fly zone", which turned into an air bombing campaign and then regime change.
I can't help feeling that the BBC has a pro-establishment bias with it's selective reporting now, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. It seems as if it's doing the Foreign Office more than a favour or two, by simply not giving significant coverage to it's adventures overseas when things go off the rails.

[Top_gun]

It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism

[TheAnimus]

Oh lord, comment is free bad enough... Owen Jones, oh.

Certain things it has to be said deleting from the internet, would just be positive. Oh and Polly Tonnybe, she can be deleted too.