Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think newspapers should have a legal responsibility to report news in a neutral way, leaving any bias to seperate clearly marked editorial sections and commentary.

If there are regular or serious breaches of the code that would be needed to enforce this, the Government should be able to strip from them the right to call the publication a newspaper.

I know this would be difficult to enforce, but the blatant bias of most newspapers really has no place in a democracy, where people rely on what they read to inform them as to which way they are going to vote.

Brexit is a case in point - there are arguments for and against. If you bombast your readers with pro-EU or pro-Brexit propaganda, this will have an undue influence on most of the newspaper's readership and lead them to incorrect conclusions.

[tweetiepooh]

Most papers do have a bias but it used to be pretty well known and as private entities they are quite in their right to have that bias. People usually read the papers whose bias matches their. Where I do agree some care is needed is the more covert bias that can be present in actual news reporting using facts to present a different truth in each. But we don't want censorship nor the inability for papers to write editorials or comment. Overt bias is OK as the purchaser/reader can understand and see that the bias is present.

The BBC shouldn't have that bias in totality as it is paid more generally though individual programmes/presenters may have such a bias.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

The BBC shouldn't have that bias in totality as it is paid more generally though individual programmes/presenters may have such a bias.

Newspapers are optional. The BBC we're stuck with. I object to being made to pay for such a politically biased institution and this election has really shown up the BBC for what it is. Why should we have to fund this junk? You have to pay even if you never watch it.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think newspapers should have a legal responsibility to report news in a neutral way, leaving any bias to seperate clearly marked editorial sections and commentary.

If there are regular or serious breaches of the code that would be needed to enforce this, the Government should be able to strip from them the right to call the publication a newspaper.

I know this would be difficult to enforce, but the blatant bias of most newspapers really has no place in a democracy, where people rely on what they read to inform them as to which way they are going to vote.

As much as I dislike the coverage that comes from some papers I am not sure it's wise for the government to intervene. A free press is a defence against government corruption and as such we need them to have as little authority over them as possible. They still have to obey the law obviously, although even then there can be exceptions, but otherwise they should be able to print and say what they want.

Also it's nearly impossible to rule out bias. We all view the world though a certain perspective and it's hard to rid ourselves of that. We all for example approach issues with a Western mindset. It's also in the news you cover too. The Mail and The Sun for example rarely lie but they might report only one minor part of something, they could focus on one finding of a report and ignore other findings with put it into context etc. Would you have to force them to report the rest of it? Gets tricky real quick.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Newspapers are optional. The BBC we're stuck with. I object to being made to pay for such a politically biased institution and this election has really shown up the BBC for what it is. Why should we have to fund this junk? You have to pay even if you never watch it.

Which is what I said. Individual programmes/presenters/editors etc on the BBC can have a bias but as a whole, being publicly funded it should be balanced and impartial.

And balance doesn't mean putting one "opinion" on for a couple of hours in the wee small hours to "balance" another view repeated in smaller chunks at peak time.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Individual programmes/presenters/editors etc on the BBC can have a bias.

I don't think they should. That's how BBC is propagating their bias. I suspect their time period coverage on both aspects of say the referendum was equal; it's the tone of specific reporters and commentators where the bias creeps in. Take for example Dateline London with a group of foreign journalists. The American is virtually always a Democrat who hates Trump and they are all pretty much anti Brexit.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Which is what I said.

Keep your drawers on feisty

[1andrew1]

Fingers crossed for a hung Parliament and a soft Brexit!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Fingers crossed for a hung Parliament and a soft Brexit!

According to Nigel he thinks a second referendum could happen.

Clearly the call for a second referendum is going to increase and a third and a fourth till we vote the right way.

Nope. If the Tories come short the DUP will prop them up if for no other reason than getting Brexit done. The Tories will form the next government, and Brexit will go ahead.

I hope so but i doubt theresa may is going to be pm for much longer and whoever takes over will face calls for an election.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I hope so but i doubt theresa may is going to be pm for much longer and whoever takes over will face calls for an election.

Not sure many want another election RK.

I don't think there will be a choice this mess is going to roll and roll.