h a l f b a k e r yThe word "How?" springs to mind at this point.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
"The Syldavian government announced this morning that they have begun their long-anticipated invasion of neighbouring Freedonia. A spokesman for the government in Klow said..."
If you find listening to or watching the news too distressing, just tune in to this Fake News Channel, which will broadcast
realistic-sounding news stories, analysis, 'breaking news', and weather all of which will be about fictional people, places and events. You can thus 'keep up with the news' while being happy, knowing that none of it really matters at all.
(There are plenty of fictional places and people to choose from (see link). Without looking them up, do you know the origin of Syldavia and Freedonia?)
https://en.wikipedi...fictional_locations
[hippo, Nov 14 2023]
[link]
|
| |
So a news channel that rather than reporting factually on real events provides news with little or no correlation to real events? that's been baked by the BBC for decades surely? how'd I do? that was the sort of response you were fishing for right? ;) |
|
| |
Being serious though I thought The Onion had this one wrapped up already? |
|
| |
It's an impressive measure of the BBC's neutrality that everyone thinks they're a bit biased.
Good point about The Onion - I should have said that this would not be a satirical thing but rather a news-substitute for people who don't like watching or listening to the actual news |
|
| |
Hmm .. the BBCs neutrality or lack thereof on certain topics can be and has been shown with statistical analysis of air time and representation figures across a broad range of news, opinion and current affairs programming, they have a very clear bias on certain topics that in some cases is definitely at odds with the polled prevailing opinion and bias of the general public, it's not a matter for debate so much as proven fact at this point. |
|
| |
...according to 'Skewed' :-)
Aaaaanyway, let's try and keep the annotations on-topic |
|
| |
//Hmm .. the BBCs neutrality or lack thereof on certain topics can be and has been shown with statistical analysis of air time and representation figures across a broad range of news, opinion and current affairs programming, they have a very clear bias on certain topics that in some cases is definitely at odds with the polled prevailing opinion and bias of the general public, it's not a matter for debate so much as proven fact at this point.// |
|
| |
To be fair, the general public is just uneducated and wrong on lots of things. Matching their bias would be a mistake.
I mean, the whole point is to inform so people can update their ideas and correct their bias. |
|
| |
Have you heard of Ground news?
They're a media aggregator which looks at how news stories are reported by the media.
As part of that, they evaluate the bias of news sources..
They say this about BBC news:
"We’ve assigned a media bias rating of center to BBC News. [...] BBC News’s aggregated factuality score is high." |
|
| |
I don't particularly like the left-right political spectrum model, and indeed, ground news itself says this about their "Center" rating:
::These publications have no discernable political position. They use very few loaded words and the reporting is well sourced. On a given issue, they present a relatively complete survey of key competing positions. This rating does not necessarily represent “balance” or “neutrality.” A Center rating does not imply that the position is best or most valid.:: |
|
| |
However, it's clearly the least biased position, all other rating options being more biased. |
|
| |
It seems obvious that the individual reporters in the BBC will have their own biases, but the BBC as a whole prides itself on being unbiased and strives for that in its reporting. That's not to say mistakes won't happen, but realistically, it's one of the least biased sources available. |
|
| |
Honestly, if anything the problem with it is that sometimes it tries too hard to be 'fair', and gives the impression of a debate when one side is a fringe view with very little support. |
|
| |
[a1] My children (who used to read a lot of Tintin books) were in their teens before they realised Syldavia wasn’t a real country! |
|
| |
Approved [+] Where I live the news is always dire and negativity is the prevailing ethos. Does the subscription come with regular infusions of a powerful anti-depressant? Sign me up. |
|
| |
Love it. [+] It wouldn't be too hard to start baking, just make a new Youtube channel, get a background, and start doin it. |
|
| |
In so many cases of tuning into the News, it is just a background drone of talking and segues. It’s not listened to for information, it just provides some kind of through-line in a modern day. I can see personalities delivering this non-information becoming celebrities; it really doesn’t matter what they put out. “Bassweejia and High Colonic signed a peace treaty today that cements the relationship of cultures and language.” Great, I could care less. I don’t have to. |
|
| |
But the name will never do. We need something snappy, with attitude and verve. I’m at a loss… |
|
| |
//I mean, the whole point is to inform so people can update their ideas and correct their bias// |
|
| |
Ah yes, telling the plebs who they should vote for, what's really good for them and what they should think because they never get any of this stuff right if left to themselves ;) |
|
| |
No, that would actually be against the BBCs charter, not that it appears they remember that or pay it anything but lip service these days, the whole point [should] be to inform people of facts without bias, favour or opinion and leave people to make up their own minds what they think about them. |
|
| |
They used to make a better job of that than they do now. |
|
| |