Getting close to the truth. What's to be done? - The Bear and Badger

davyK

The government/news media complex is such that it's becoming rather difficult to get a balanced view of anything. You only have to read a couple of issues of Private Eye to see the revolving door between government , media, civil service and the compromises that exist. It's pretty tricky to keep track of.

It's OK to read a paper and know its biases. e.g. I read the Telegraph most Saturdays. Mainly for the culture/tv/books bit but reading the newspaper itself you can see the bias and factor it in. I sometimes flip to the Guardian on a Sunday - again for its culture/tv/books ..... but also for balance. I prefer the Observer to the Guardian and read that more regularly on a Sunday.

But what's the point of all that faff of applying filters. Opinion pieces are OK as long as you know the leaning but where do you go and get hold of some unbiased pieces and some factual reporting? Maybe I'm just better staying as is? Newspaper ownership is a spectre. I gave up on papers for several years, particularly after the phone hacking scandal but I've eased back to weekend reading as its pleasurable.

I'd welcome any suggestions for sites, magazines or even sources with declared leaning. I pick up the Financial Times occasionally. Regularly sub to Private Eye.

Lord_Griff

This is something that has been preying on my mind a lot recently. It is not only print but all media. There is no dialogue anymore.

Yossarian

There’s no Guardian on Sunday, only the Observer.

You want unbiased news (or as close as is possible), try this:

https://apnews.com/

Or this:

https://www.reuters.com/

davyK

Ah - must have been Guardian on a Saturday then. I preferred the cultural bits in the Telegraph. But I wanted a 2nd view which is why I went Observer on a Sunday. Both nice fat bundles.

Rev

Yeah, it would be nice to be able to point people to actual sources. I myself partake in a bit of Byline Times as I find they seem to cut through a lot of the crap and just report on what's happening and what we're not being told about.

nick_md

@Davy Yoss is splitting hairs a bit, Guardian/Observer are the same stable, they use Guardian Mon - Sat, Observer Sun. There are differences I'm sure but it's the same family.

Yossarian

They’re two separate editorial teams. The back office stuff is all shared, but editorial decisions are made independently of each other.

Yossarian

Plus there’s no Guardian printed on a Sunday, which was my main point.

davyK

nick_md wrote:

@Davy Yoss is splitting hairs a bit, Guardian/Observer are the same stable, they use Guardian Mon - Sat, Observer Sun. There are differences I'm sure but it's the same family.

Cheers. Observer just has a nicer feel to it - can't quite put my finger on it. Less pointy and angry maybe. Some of the columnists in the Telegraph are hard to stomach - even going by their picture - but it's still always worth listening to them. But Telegraph and Observer have Mr and Mrs Mitchell covered in their columns.

GurtTractor

Literally every point of view has a bias, and even attempts at purely factual reporting will be biased in some way just based on the lives of whoever is doing the reporting. Best you can do is read from a range of opposing and theoretically neutral sources and apply some reasoning to make a best guess at reality.

There's this though it's US-centric and I don't think it's seen much development recently - https://www.improvethenews.org/ It supposedly uses machine learning stuff to figure out the biases/style of publications and gives you various sliders to filter news with. Trying it now it seems very limited but perhaps there's a better take on the concept out there.

nick_md

Yossarian wrote:

They’re two separate editorial teams. The back office stuff is all shared, but editorial decisions are made independently of each other.

Sure but they're cut from the same cloth right? I just assumed Davy meant Observer as both that and Guardian have the same look/style.

I mean, googling for The Observer gets you https://www.theguardian.com/observer

But yes, you're right insomuch as there's no paper called The Guardian on Sunday.

Kow

Reuters is a decent place to go, especially as a lot of mainstream media also goes there for news.

Yossarian

nick_md wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

They’re two separate editorial teams. The back office stuff is all shared, but editorial decisions are made independently of each other.

Sure but they're cut from the same cloth right? I just assumed Davy meant Observer as both that and Guardian have the same look/style.

I mean, googling for The Observer gets you https://www.theguardian.com/observer

But yes, you're right insomuch as there's no paper called The Guardian on Sunday.

I get what you mean, but internally, they are very separate and if it were up the the Observer, then there would even be a separate site (or a separate part of the site).

The Observer is older than the Guardian (in fact, it’s the oldest Sunday newspaper in the world), it was acquired in 1993. For the majority of the Observer’s history, it was an entirely separate publication, the staff who work on the Observer are very cognisant of that fact and do keep themselves slightly apart from the rest of the newsroom. They have their own processes, their own meetings, their own section of the building, and their own chain of command which I’m pretty sure reports into the company that owns both the G and the Observer rather than anyone at the Guardian.

So yeah, it is separate despite the outward appearance and the sharing of a number of backroom functions.

Diluted Dante

The Observer to The Observer: The Observer.

The Observer to everyone else: The Guardian.

Yossarian

Diluted Dante wrote:

The Observer to The Observer: The Observer.

The Observer to everyone else*: The Guardian.

*who isn’t looking at a newsstand.

Diluted Dante

So most people reading The Observer content then?

Yossarian

Yep.

poprock

I think Yoss made a good couple of suggestions at the start of the thread. For pure news with as little bias as possible, go straight to the source - the information agencies who supply the press. Reuters, Associated Press … but they’re ultimately US companies despite their global reach. Who else is out there?

Genuinely pure reporting isn’t really feasible, there’s bias built into the very act of wanting to report. So being media savvy is key.

(And here comes my own bias) That’s why a liberal arts education is so essential for modern life.

Yossarian

Reuters is headquartered in London, but it is now owned by an American company.

There are a number of other agencies out there, some of which may not be quite as trustworthy as others. There’s a list here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency

Funkstain

Fuck Reuters. First they get rid of their feed, and then they re-design their website to be as impenetrable and ad-riddled as possible.

AP will do for now for headlines.

But the reality is what we crave is people telling us what to think, which means comment, which means finding people whose commentary interests you, challenges you, provides depth and insight and context. Follow people not papers.

Funkstain

Also - although the agencies do run some investigative features, it's not really a speciality, is it? Find people / reporters / journalists willing to expose truths and put in the hard yards to turn over rocks and shine light on shitty things. Private Eye remains excellent at this.

Yossarian

Funkstain wrote:

Follow people not papers.

Yeah, that’s pretty much my approach these days. Twitter FTW.

GooberTheHat

Reuters, associated press and for non British politics stuff the BBC is still very reliable. Other than that you really just need to maintain a critical mindset, assume some bias by the author/outlet and try and figure out what they are trying to make you feel as you read the article. Persuasive, emotive language is always a key indicator that someone is trying to manipulate you into taking a particular opinion, but it can obviously be much more subtle than than.

As long as you remain critical and suspicious of the motives of the author you'll be okay (and check the facts/data/statistics where you feel you need to).