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.
Comments
"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.