In theory the UK has that with the BBC (albeit more than "a news channel" is included, and albeit that it's funded by a separate license fee), the problem is you still have ways for the Government to pressure an independant organisation, by implicitly or explicitly threatening to cut or offering to boost budgets.
Something like the BBC is what I had in mind. I know it is not perfect, but I like the BBC more than any other news channel. Very professional, nothing is sensationalized, extensive news coverage, and good interviews.
I listened to the Business News on BBC Worldwide on SirusXM one night. A more left-leaning broadcast would be pretty hard. I found it pretty biased. I turn into the BBC for breaking news, but their analysis is biased.
The BBC isn't biased, they're just British, and the UK has a known liberal bias (along with all of Europe). In the same way that the BBC tells things from a Western-European perspective, that isn't an organisational bias, that is a national one.
Even the US's left wing party (Democrats) would be considered right wing in the UK (and you can compare/contrast the UK Conservative Party with the US Democratic party). Although Sanders/Warren would fit right in.
US news by contrast (CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly) to me sound like a Cold War era propaganda machine. Constantly drum-beating the drums of potential war, singing songs about patriotism and bravery, and telling the audience the several things they should be "scared" of tonight (daily moral panic, typically foreigners, but sometimes hackers, terrorists, new fangled technology, photographers, et al).
The organisation (BBC) isn't biased, but they're from a culture/country with it's own inherent biases (UK).
Unfortunately overcoming all biases is extremely hard. Everyone sees things from their own perspective, and the western world is definitely very susceptible to that.
If you can point me to an organisation which has no biases from its origins/national identity then I'd love to see it. I like Al Jazeera, but even they have their views shaped by the nationalities of the respective editors/reporters involved (that's actually why they're so useful, you get a slightly different perspective on events or news).
You say it is a "terrible argument" but simply calling something a "terrible argument" without any kind of explanation or rationalisation is itself a terrible argument. Sorry to be blunt, but I think someone needed to tell you.
It is not really terrible once you think about it. There will always be some bias that exists, the key is to minimize it. Nearly all media today is "biased" against fascism, for example. It was a legitimate political philosophy, but the public doesn't really believe in it anymore. Should we give equal coverage to fascism to be unbiased? How about monarchy? Or feudalism?
The "liberal bias" you talk about often manifests as "let's care for the poor". Believe it or not, most humans think that way. Should we give equal air time to psychopaths, just to be fair?
The "liberal bias" you talk about often manifests as "let's care for the poor". Believe it or not, most humans think that way. Should we give equal air time to psychopaths, just to be fair?
No, the "liberal bias" is believing that the other side is psychopaths and doesn't want to care for the poor.
I find BBC news coverage superior and more objective than news agencies in the US that receive no funding from the government at all. Consumers can incentivize bias just as easily as government.
Comments
In theory the UK has that with the BBC (albeit more than "a news channel" is included, and albeit that it's funded by a separate license fee), the problem is you still have ways for the Government to pressure an independant organisation, by implicitly or explicitly threatening to cut or offering to boost budgets.
Something like the BBC is what I had in mind. I know it is not perfect, but I like the BBC more than any other news channel. Very professional, nothing is sensationalized, extensive news coverage, and good interviews.
I listened to the Business News on BBC Worldwide on SirusXM one night. A more left-leaning broadcast would be pretty hard. I found it pretty biased. I turn into the BBC for breaking news, but their analysis is biased.
The BBC isn't biased, they're just British, and the UK has a known liberal bias (along with all of Europe). In the same way that the BBC tells things from a Western-European perspective, that isn't an organisational bias, that is a national one.
Even the US's left wing party (Democrats) would be considered right wing in the UK (and you can compare/contrast the UK Conservative Party with the US Democratic party). Although Sanders/Warren would fit right in.
US news by contrast (CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly) to me sound like a Cold War era propaganda machine. Constantly drum-beating the drums of potential war, singing songs about patriotism and bravery, and telling the audience the several things they should be "scared" of tonight (daily moral panic, typically foreigners, but sometimes hackers, terrorists, new fangled technology, photographers, et al).
"They aren't biased, they're just conforming to bias" is a terrible argument. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think someone needed to tell you.
The organisation (BBC) isn't biased, but they're from a culture/country with it's own inherent biases (UK).
Unfortunately overcoming all biases is extremely hard. Everyone sees things from their own perspective, and the western world is definitely very susceptible to that.
If you can point me to an organisation which has no biases from its origins/national identity then I'd love to see it. I like Al Jazeera, but even they have their views shaped by the nationalities of the respective editors/reporters involved (that's actually why they're so useful, you get a slightly different perspective on events or news).
You say it is a "terrible argument" but simply calling something a "terrible argument" without any kind of explanation or rationalisation is itself a terrible argument. Sorry to be blunt, but I think someone needed to tell you.
It is not really terrible once you think about it. There will always be some bias that exists, the key is to minimize it. Nearly all media today is "biased" against fascism, for example. It was a legitimate political philosophy, but the public doesn't really believe in it anymore. Should we give equal coverage to fascism to be unbiased? How about monarchy? Or feudalism?
The "liberal bias" you talk about often manifests as "let's care for the poor". Believe it or not, most humans think that way. Should we give equal air time to psychopaths, just to be fair?
No, the "liberal bias" is believing that the other side is psychopaths and doesn't want to care for the poor.
I find BBC news coverage superior and more objective than news agencies in the US that receive no funding from the government at all. Consumers can incentivize bias just as easily as government.