back to article Balanced, neutral journalism is RUBBISH and that's a FACT

New research has revealed what we here at the Register have always known to be the self-evident, hard, cold, factual truth: which is that balanced, neutral journalism is not just incredibly boring, it is also bad for readers' mental health and turns them into apathetic drones who can't be bothered to engage with the world around …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Jerome 0
    Unhappy

    Confused

    Your article was not clear enough about whether biased or unbiased journalism was better. Please tell me what to think.

  2. The Alpha Klutz
    Megaphone

    being opinionated

    works for me.

    Also I just wanted to add the following thought of mine:

    This sort of thing is generally frowned on among real journalists as it amounts to little more than reproducing information already published by someone else.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Journalism will have to reinvent itself

    If only because everyone and his dog now has a blog and tweets opinion every day. Most, by far, is bunk and even fair and balanced bunk is still bunk. The problem then, isn't in the fair and balanced bit.

    It is no surprise that most people are happiest when told what to think. That's been a success for ages (see: world religions, strong leaders) but certainly isn't the hallmark of good journalism. Then again, he said/she said is the lazy way to gloss journalism with a "quality" veneer. All of them are not what journalism ought to be about.

    I don't mind opinion from Journalists, as long as they show their facts and explain how they've come to that conclusion. Basically sound intelligence analysis, to build on top of facts that for best scoop are gathered yourself. And yes, that means that he said/she said still has a place, but certainly not as sole trick to make a living with. It also means having to have a deep understanding of the field you're writing about, preferrably formally trained and a couple years in the field at least.

    In an ever more data-riddled world, figuring what's important and what's not is an important skill, and there Journalism can still make a difference. But the lazy sods now rolling out the back end of journalism schools can barely write. Someone's got their work cut out for them.

  4. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Links to the source material and commentards please

    If an article is badly wrong (or annoyingly right) there will be complaints from the commentards. The better commentards will provide links to support their position. Even without links, commentards can point out where to look further, or what sort of things commentards missunderstand. One of the thing I like about the Register is that most of the journalists are prepared to have criticism tacked onto their articles. The criticism is a mixture of incoherent drivel, attempts at humour, valid questions, useful answers, and sometimes evidence for what is really going on.

    I like journalists to give their opinions. I can decide for myself whether those opinions are derived from bias, ignorance or insight. It is much easier to reach those conclusions when there are links to the source material. I can hunt down a particular draft EU directive, but it is much easier if the journalist provides the link he used for his research.

    If Alice says the battle of Hastings was in 1066, and Bob says it was in 1076 that does not mean the right year was 1071. If a journalist provides a link to the appropriates articles in The Times and The Sun for 1066-10-14 then Bob and editorial balance should be filed in the bin.

  5. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    A different conclusion

    From my understanding of the article it follows that people prefer when journalists bother to investigate the facts and attempt to understand something about the matter at hand rather than when they try to hide their total ignorance of the subject by quoting numerous "experts". Hardly a big surprise...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Hmmm

    I have not very often seen much 'balanced, fair journalism'. Virtually every piece of journalism I have ever seen has bias in it, including pieces here.

    Personally I find it better when the journalist expresses their own opinion/bias but still tries to defend the opposing view to their bias. Certain contributors here, sadly, do not live up to that expectation and throw in random comments at other things that they don't really seem to know about but thought it would somehow be relevant.

    Mr Orlowski is a shining example: some of his discussions about the rights of 'freetards vs paytards' show his bias clearly enough but in those he does at least go to a little trouble to argue the opposite view. Not a lot of trouble, mind, but he does at least attempt it - which means he's seeing the issue from both sides and I respect that, even though it's biased, because at least I'm familiar with his bias - and it would be fair, but not balanced.

    If you have a report that's fair *and* balanced, you really have to be asking deeper questions.

  7. IR
    Stop

    Wait

    So people prefer it when journalists actually research the background of a debate and present that evidence, rather than just reporting what people said. And that's bad because? Just because this style of journalism tends to be opinionated doesn't mean that it will be, or that it should be discounted.

    I was somewhat amused that Page wrote this article.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    So people who have *no* opinion on a subject like to be told what opinion to have?

    Only I seem to recall that one of the objectives of higher education is to develop the ability of students to form their *own* opinions.

    A process which this group would appear to be a *long* way from completing.

    We might also note how representative the average US college student is of a typical newspaper or news reader.

    We might start by asking *if* they read a newspaper watch TV news at all.

    Just a few thoughts.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A question.

    How many of my esteemed fellow commentards go out of your way to read opinions you know are likely to disagree with? Isn't it far easier to read the inconsequential bits of news and the things that give you a warm fuzzy feeling and ignore the uncomfy stuff as much as possible?

  10. Clyde

    BBC

    That's why I seldom watch BBC news any more then.

  11. Estariel
    Thumb Up

    Deconstructing Journalism

    Nice to see the Reg reminding us that journalism is closely related to propaganda, and only becomes less like propanganda when we are reminded of that fact.

    I suspect many of the readers are reassured by "Our bias is X. But feel free to comment otherwise".

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    Re: Americans

    Brits may not be familiar with the Canadian-produced "Talking to Americans," wherein comic Rick Mercer questioned American college students (and the odd prof) and a few politicians with preposterous "facts" about Canada. Could likely be found on YouTube for those curious.

    Best moment: asking Republican pres candidate contender GW Bush to congratulate Canadian PM Jean "Poutine" (Chretien) on something or other. He did, repeating the name. Poutine, of course, is a Quebecois dish consisting of French fries topped with fresh cheese curds, covered with brown gravy or sauce.

    I agree with the premise of the research, but it could have used a more reputable base.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ORLY?

    "There are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says," asserts Raymond Pingree, a prof at Ohio State uni. "It makes readers feel like they can’t figure out what the truth is ..."

    Don't scientists do this 'reading both sides of an argument' stuff all the time? Do scientists despair they can't figure out what the truth is, then? Wow. It's a wonder anything gets done with all these depressed scientists around.

    The only time I despair I can't figure out what the truth is is when I read lazy-ass journalism that just parrots the official figures without digging any deeper, or citing any research, or even trying to engage with the subject at hand.

  14. heyrick Silver badge

    I prefer biased news...

    ...at least you know where you stand and can look for alternative viewpoints. I don't believe totally unbiased reporting is possible - if the news is dry and emotion free, it can still be biased by what is chosen to (not) report.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Vapid

    Yes, it's true that journalism that just reports what each side says is crushingly boring. Just read any of the major American papers.

    But that's mostly because, as so many other comments have pointed out, politicians and businesspeople have long ago learned to say nothing at varying lengths and in sugar-coated words. Obviously, reading about how one person said nothing and then, in reply, another person said nothing in a different way has little appeal.

    How different from the days of Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox; Gladstone and Disraeli; or even Churchill. Luckily we have new sources of substantial intellectual fare in such sites as Slashdot and The Register.

  16. IT Drone

    Balanced but unfair?

    A problem with so-called balanced reporting is the need to go off and find two opposing points of view even when one side is a bonkers or minority view.

    An example from a few years back was Global Warming (a term found to be too biased) aka Climate Change. Despite the majority of scientific opinion pointing to man-made influences being detrimental to the environment, journalists still had to find someone who disagreed for “balance”. Of course it could be that scientists had to take the view they did in order to get funding?

    I reckon there must be some truth behind this research though - I still get a feeling of nihilistic despair if a climate change discussion kicks off again in the media...

  17. Tom 13
    Flame

    Some commentards here seem to suffer from the mistaken notion

    that journalism involves the search for truth. When I had my introductory journalism class in college, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I was interested in the search for truth, I needed to go to a different building where they held philosophy classes. Journalists could only report what other people said. And if you did that for long enough, you might eventually be rewarded with an opinion column in which you could pontificate on your beliefs, but it still would not be truth. You might occasionally be able to find a fact, but even then you were better off quoting someone as saying it was a fact than reporting it was a fact.

    Personally, I suspect the prof of having a predisposition toward the conclusion he reached, and that predisposition colored the results of his findings. Not because I disagree that clear positions are superior to balanced and neutral, but because I've never known an American college student who suffered the depths of despair he describes.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    God, what a looser...

    I love that little boot-note at the end, basically an official recognition from the reg that it's all rubbish (although I would of put it in the title). I don't know what your motives are, but it's bleeding obvious that is isn't public education, because that requires actual facts. I'm not really sure where to start on this, knowing nothing at all about nuclear poisoning, still... i have followed the scientific journals through this, and have heard actual experts analysis (no quotes like "say maybe something like 25%") and they all (an i mean ALL), seem to think this was pretty damn serious. they also seem to think that the effects of this will by in large not be noticeable for 10 to 20 years. so here's the deal. if the workers who worked in saving the plant and Japan start getting sick, you will loose ALL credibility.

    I also love how you've referenced this treehugger.com article which ends with "the desperation of the nuclear advocates is becoming more and more obvious. We must be on the right track then" as opposed to the link below from the actual source, which to me indicates that you haven't even read it. Or the fact that instead of quoting scientists, you reference (and badly) Japanese politicians, as some sort of honest authority with no ulterior motives. or that "250 millisievert" which is going to be lowered, without mentioning that it was at a 100 millisievert before the catastrophe, and they've changed it to allow the workers to stay there.

    There's also the fact that workers have measured their annual radiation limit in 7 minutes 30km away from the plant. (I can reference this, but I can't be arsed, just go to DemocracyNow.org and find it if you want to)

    The one thing I do agree with you is this, many people got hurt by this disaster, this human tragedy is greater then the worst case scenario, and this one was a really REALLY close miss, if it wasn't for the wind blowing to sea, the snowstorm, and the massive sacrifice of the workers inside, it could of been much worst, but there are still many Japanese people who have lost their homes and families in this disaster, and focusing on the nuclear danger while ignoring it is also dangerous.

    Anyone remembers this: http://xkcd.com/748/ ?

    Why on earth will you want to have LESS regulations, and less safety? Ok, say you are right and I am wrong, better, say uranium (or what ever if in the air there now) is really good for you, has no harmful effects, and in fact prolongs your life, what's the argument for less regulation? Is this just blind trust in that heads on industry know best? (judging by the way you reference politicians on this I guess that's what you believe). I am wondering, have you got any friends in the nuclear and or arms industry? are you receiving nice payout for this? have you got any shares in it?, or are you a truly passionate nuclear enthusiast?

    (And Monbiot, don't talk to me about Monbiot)

    I am sure you can find "actual" scientists who will have evidence to support your argument (after all there are still scientists who can produce seemingly credible evidence that smoking is good for you and global warming is a globalist conspiracy). Next time, try and reference them, it will make it harder to discredit you (and take the piss out of you too)

    As for the public health and safety, only time will tell

    I have plenty more where this came from, but for now...

    AC obviously, you what's the point of slandering people on the internet if you can't hide your identity!

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like