Just wanted to make a quick thread about media bias because a lot of people don't really seem to know what it is, I used to be the same my analogy would have been how can the media be biased all they do is report the news so I'm just going to give a couple of examples about what media bias is.

First of all the agenda setting theory is a theory that the more the media dwell on a subject the more important that subject will seem to the public when it may be a small issue but the media has an agenda in over reporting it to make it a bigger issue.

Another one is filtering and shaping reality where it will try and create a perceived reality of a situation by picking certain things out of a situation and reporting on it while ignoring or giving little attention to other things, ie the agenda setting theory also plays a part in this.

Just wanted to make a thread on this because most people don't seem to understand what it is and how big a subliminal influence it has, kind of think of it like a reality tv show where the show is obviously edited and how they edit it will reflect on public perception.

Exactly. Media bias has a massive influence especially on current things such as Syria.

Welcome to the forum. Good post. I think it would also be very important to not forget to include what news isn't reported on. Because presenting a biased narrative would also be heavily dependent on what is left out of the picture by omission.

The news is just a framework of stories which have been carefully selected for us. We only see the handful of news items on the nightly daily bulletins as important news because it is implied to us that these stories are the most important to us, even if somebody else chose which stories to feature on our behalf. They will decide for us what news is deemed to be important. And as you say that is definitely going to shape our perception.

Those stories could probably be reported on in about five minutes flat if the news was just about reporting the news. But most mainstream news isn't just about reporting the news, it's about the discussion, the spin, the supposed experts being asked on for their views, and the punditry surrounding the main stories.

But that's not all, those 5 or 6 stories on the news bulletin aren't just for the day they were first reported on. Some of them are reused as featured news items for the following few days. Those items have already been reported, but they are sometimes updated throughout the same week and stretched way past their sell by date. Sometimes those updates are significant, but frequently the updates are very minor and just provide an opportunity to hear what somebody on the street thinks, or what has been said on Twitter. In other words how people feel can be classified as news.

In fact a public figure saying something on Twitter can be presented as the news right now. A Twitter post can be the main featured story on the nightly news. Just take a moment to digest that for a minute.

Just watch any nightly news item on any given day and think about how much you are watching is actually news about something which actually happened. Count how many stories are featured and how many minutes are spent just speaking with somebody about the featured items and analysing them. So much of it is more about interpreting that news and packaging it for the viewer by telling them how they should perceive it.

Also take note of how over several different channels most of the news stories are exactly the same. You would expect that on different channels they may end up making different choices about which news stories to feature. I'm not talking about a major headline which you'd expect them all to cover, I mean just secondary stories.
They have also used the same language to report on each story across a broad range of channels like it was from the same script, and I mean exactly the same.
There are videos on youtube which highlight this. I first became aware of this when Michael Jackson died. Every single channel reported the news starting with the same sentence 'troubled musician Michael Jackson'. Every single one of them said exactly the same thing by starting their item with those exact same words. Different news teams on different channels. How can that be a coincidence?

My favourite little 'media bias framing device' is one used frequently on LBC.

The presenter will propose the topic of discussion and ask something like:

"So, news today that X is happening/going to happen.

Do you think that X is a good thing

Or is it THE MOST STUPID, EVIL IDEA ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH?


....call now.."


I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.

You're right, so much of the news seems to be taken up with 'expert' guests predicting what's going to happen, rather than reporting on things which have actually just happened.
Probably more time is spent on idle speculation than reporting of actual news.

If it isn't about predicting what's going to happen, then it's about people just being asked to give their opinion on the news.

Bias by omission is a big problem.

Take the Middle East lately. Wall to wall stuff on Syria, hardly anything on Yemen (because it's our mates from Saudi doing it).

Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't hear much about those any more since we went in and left power vacuums.

Also pretending to be balanced on a subject by getting a person from each side to argue the case, but you get someone who isn't too good at arguing their case v someone who is much better. Then balance can be claimed (we got someone from each side), but in reality it's anything but.

Unfortunately another possibly more problematic manifestation of bias is in thinking everyone else is more biased than you are.

That's difficult to overcome when people generally think of themselves as free to form opinions and beliefs of their own choosing.

Some Corbynistas (most maybe) now regard The Guardian as part of the right wing press. And the BBC.

Exactly people think everything is their own opinion which isn't true

Or who you invite on to represent an issue. If the news wants the viewer to take an opposing view they can invite on a total nutjob, or someone the public is unlikely to warm to, to make the opposing argument.

For example, if you see katie hopkins on the news representing an argument, well you know which way the producers are hoping the public are going to side.

They arent right wing they are establishment outlets who often side on the right depending on the issue. The BBC will very often be bias towards the right. The guardian dont, they are far more liberal/left wing in their bias however that does not mean they cannot be pro-war for example and produce propaganda for the "establishment".

The BBC is more towards the right? Haha, no.

It's questionable whether the media can be unbiased even in principle.

That is true. I think however that people today, unlike back in the old days, have more choices on where to get the news and how. They don't need to only read/listen/watch biased news from most of the public PBS, daily newspapers and other biased sources. They can have access to many sources and then based on what they have learned, can make their own independent opinion about something.

I will take myself as an example here. As much as Syria is terrible and suffering of the innocent people is immense, I am inclined to believe that the Assad regime is still the lesser evil than the Saudi and West - backed opposition fighters who are very radical would promote radical Islam and values similar to those of ISIS (if not worse).


Assad on the other hand is a brutal dictator backed by Moscow, but there is one key point about him and the policies he promotes - he is not radical! Syria under Assad was a prosperous country rich in resources and culturally diverse. Rights of the minorities were respected and radical Islamic teachings were frown upon, to say the lest.


Education was free for all and both sexes were encouraged to attend schools. People were well educated and had a good living standards.


In my opinion, Assad will always be a better choice for Syria than a group of Islamists calling themselves opposition and half of them weren't even from Syria.


Despite the fact that in most western media we hear how Assad is an evil dictator and he should be ousted, I still think he is better than the alternative.

Bias is virtually impossible to hide now because of modern technology. It's the people choosing to remain ignorant that is the real issue.

Most live in an echo chamber.

And yes outside of QT (pantomime) the BBC is hugely Pro establishment. Left and right are nothing more than buzz words these days.

I don't think there is any such thing as a 'neutral' media, the BBC tries it's best to be balanced but then all it's doing is positioning itself in the middle of current political debates - and if those debates are created by the press then it's sucked into the same problem.

One area I would highlight is that the press focuses too much on issues that effect the higher income earners in society at the expanse of the rest. They talk as though ever average 'middle Englander' is paying 40% tax and worrying about inheritance tax when the truth is that the majority in the county aren't effected by these issues.

The BBC is full of Tories appointed by Tories. It has a Tory agenda. However it has promoted the UKIPs and the Farages (who have strong Tory links, such as their funding) to target Labour voting areas.
It was estimated that the switch from Labour to UKIP cost Labour at least 30 seats at the last GE. Most going to the Tories and thus effectively a 60 seat variance.

The Guardian isn't left or right wing.
It's Labour, but Blairite Labour not Corbyn's.
Therefore they have shown little support for Labour in it's current form.

The BBC would need to take several massive steps to the left to even reach the right. And they'd still be wrong.

In the case of the BBC, where left wingers say it is too right wing, and right wingers say it is too left wing, it probably means it has got the balance just about correct as far as agendas are concerned.

As for the papers, we all know which paper supports which side. It is no secret.

I am just saying what many Corbynistas are saying. I tend to think the press is fairly balanced apart from a few papers which are right wing.

Do you? Goodness! The press has no requirement on it to be impartial and in my view it largely isn't, nor should it be. I have no problem with that. I'd rather know, and take into account, the news I'm reading is being filtered to some extent through a particular stance than believe the reporting is impartial - something I doubt is possible even in principle.

I know what i'm '''supposed'' to say. bbc is full of hardline Trotskyists, everyone else tells the truth .......

The only news agency which is arguably unbiased is reuters, even they are sometimes guilty of bias by omission.

Let me guess - you're another one of these people who gets their news from click bait on Facebook.