I've said this many times before, but apparently it needs to be chronically restated. What most people object to in media is not the biased reporting per se, but biased reporting masquerading as objectivity. We'd just like a little truth in advertising, but too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias. Even when their own organization points it out.

too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias.

And then, in the very next sentence, you present proof to the contrary. Nice symmetry.

Even when their own organization points it out.

No conservative organization would ever even commission, let alone publicize a report criticizing its own biases. Yet here you are exploiting that fact to attack liberals, and are using their own professionalism against them. Apparently your beloved "irony meter" is malfunctioning.

The report didn't say that the reporters recognized their own bias, Brian. In fact, it said they didn't. It said they suffered from "groupthink."

I don't need to adjust my irony meter. You just need to learn to read. Or think. Preferably both. Your postings here would be ever so much more pleasant.

Proving once again that liberal bias is ingrained, BS picks what he wants from an article and expounds on it to prove Rand's supposed bias. Brian, Rand didn't write the article, he simply linked to it. Your reaction proves the point of that article. Brian how come you don't complain when Rand, or any of us here, complain about GWB or the other supposed conservatives or libertarians in our midst?

There was an article last year (WSJ?) concerning the bias in American MSM. One of the things in that was a poll of MSM reporters. They actually thought they were middle of the road in their reporting.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

Steve, I'd say he's proving that liberal bias is indeed bias.

Rand: The report didn't say that the reporters recognized their own bias, Brian.

The report was commissioned by the BBC, about the BBC, and included criticism from its own reporters. There are differences with American media because it's a quasi-public institution, but you will never, EVER hear of a conservative media organization criticizing its own reporters for conservative bias, because promulgating that bias is the only reason such organizations are created. Journalistic values do not exist on the right.

In fact, it said they didn't. It said they suffered from "groupthink."

Which only liberals consider a problem. The conservative term for groupthinkers is "team players," and for genuine professionals the dreaded "not team players."

You just need to learn to read. Or think.

You need to learn how to apply one to the other. Let me guess what happened--you saw the term "liberal bias," saw that it was written by a reputedly liberal organization, and just couldn't wait to gloat on how "biased" we are. Why, we're so biased that even our own alleged propaganda mills are starting to question it, right? Unfortunately, the context you didn't wait to consider doesn't support that theory, and so you ended up surreally parading out the BBC's own integrity as an indictment against the "liberal media."

Steve: Brian how come you don't complain when Rand, or any of us here, complain about GWB or the other supposed conservatives or libertarians in our midst?

I often do. Most of the criticism I see from Rand toward Bush or other RWNs is to attack them for superficially siding with liberals on some issue, to say they're not insane enough, or to make some perfunctory expression of discontent with things that would have him apoplectic were they present during a liberal administration. Most of America and practically the entire world has come to the conclusion that these people are the most corrupt and incompetent Executive branch in American history, but to hear you guys tell it--Eh, they can be maybe a little sleazy, maybe a little cronyish, but whaddayagunnado? The sheer comical obtuseness of that attitude goes beyond hypocrisy into a realm of dreamlike surreality.

But change the subject to Bill Clinton, and suddenly that isn't the attitude any longer--a highly popular president with a sterling record who also bears the distinction of the most exonerated in history--and now we're talking about Caligula, because he got a blowjob from a woman of all things, and because Republicans were trying to top Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion with the Arkansas Project.

Yes, of course Rand prefaced his remarks by saying that he's against dishonesty about bias rather than bias itself, but there's a difference between expressing a point of view and being such a raving solipsist that one doesn't even make a pretense of establishing a connection between one's portrayals and reality. Liberals care whether or not they're being fair, and they can be convinced they're not if that's the case, but get a few furlongs right of center and the natives do not give a single, solitary, microscopic mouse turd whether what they're saying is true, fair, or even physically possible. I've watched some of you guys cavalierly rationalize war for any damned nebulous reasons that occurred to you, and then call liberals inhuman for raising taxes, and it's just an ongoing conundrum how anyone could either not know or not care that that's insane. What culture teaches these kinds of values? They certainly aren't those of this or any free country.

One of the things in that was a poll of MSM reporters. They actually thought they were middle of the road in their reporting.

And I largely agree--they are determinedly, ideologically neutral on all questions, even to the point of manufacturing uncertainty that doesn't exist in order to avoid accusations of bias. Given that reality has an overwhelming liberal bias, this approach amounts to a great big "ontological welfare" program for conservatives. If all known scientists on Earth say it's helium, but some pastor in Indiana says it's the Archangel Gabriel's exhalations, the MSM really doesn't want to "take sides." If Dick Cheney says Luxembourg was in on 9/11, and every intelligence agency and legitimate news organization on the planet contradicts him, the MSM will dutifully report on the "controversy" that is "dividing officials." And what awaits real journalists who report facts without considering how political power blocs will feel about it? Marginalization in the MSM and character assassination by the right's vast drone army of dittoheads.

"--a highly popular president with a sterling record who also bears the distinction of the most exonerated in history--"

I was understanding Mr. Swiderski's assertions until I came across this.

My assessment (or "my Truth (TM)") is that Mr. Swiderski is a provacateur/se(?). If an adult is interested in a conversation, they tend to offer their own observations of the original topic of the post. Instead, Mr. Swiderski focuses his attention on the poster, and then diverts to his own agenda.

IIRC, this effort to "control the narrative" is a pretty typical tactic of totalitarian ideologues in general, and in particular by some of the most prolific of history's murderers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and some of history's lesser thugs (Castro, Guevara, Allende).

While I hope Mr. Swiderski is using totalitarian tactics in ignorance, he seems too self-aware for that to be true.

In other thread he thought buried, he accused me of ad homenim attacks upon him.

I present that as prima facia evidence of his gross hypocracy.

That isn't the pot calling the kettle black, that is the refrigerator calling the stove a dishwasher.

The BBC is the compulsory national news service,
(through that TV tax)and it consistently takes the side of our enemies; in the last 6-7 years; rationalizing their atrocities by blaming it on one or another or our failings. Mind you ITN isnt
particularly better (it seems to be where CNN gets
its Brit talent (eg; Nick Robertson)I haven't seen
much of Sky, I assume it's close to Fox (meaning
it acknowledges the opposition view point)

MG: My assessment (or "my Truth (TM)") is that Mr. Swiderski is a provacateur

Why, are you provoked?

If an adult is interested in a conversation, they tend to offer their own observations of the original topic of the post.

Is that what you're doing here?

Instead, Mr. Swiderski focuses his attention on the poster, and then diverts to his own agenda.

Anyone who can read knows that's a false statement. The subject branches according to natural conversation, and I address questions from others regardless of how irrelevant (e.g., Steve's inquiry about GWB and Rand). Nor does the irony escape me that the posts you're attacking deal substantially with the immediate topic while yours doesn't even mention it.

IIRC, this effort to "control the narrative" is a pretty typical tactic of totalitarian ideologues in general, and in particular by some of the most prolific of history's murderers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and some of history's lesser thugs (Castro, Guevara, Allende).

The language of totalitarianism is non sequitur, which you apparently speak fluently. So if you want to talk about that, I would gladly reminisce about the past six years of White House talking points and lying Republican propaganda, but then (of course) you would simply accuse me of changing the subject--the gazillionth consecutive example of endemic right-wing hypocrisy. Or you can put in a Herculean effort, marshall your thoughts with the utmost determination, and find something of value to say on the original subject. I won't be holding my breath for the latter outcome, but you have my full encouragement and best wishes. Go get'em, tiger.

In other thread he thought buried, he accused me of ad homenim attacks upon him.

I wonder where I got that impression. After all, this post of yours here is clearly a font of relevancy and informed discussion on the topic of bias in journalism. Why, you barely even mention me.

narciso: and it consistently takes the side of our enemies

Do you routinely watch the BBC, or is this a second-hand opinion?

I assume it's close to Fox (meaning
it acknowledges the opposition view point)

Fox is laughable propaganda, but I've never personally watched Sky.

I've watched enough; to see how they don't refer
to terrorism unless it happens to Brits; ala Reuter's well known Saudi dissident Bin Laden; they apologized for calling Jerusalem the capital; when it is in fact; they blame Israel &
or other besieged nations for the flaws committed by British foreign policy; ie empowering Haj amin Huisseini; giving the Sunnis power in Iraq greater than their number; the dreadful partition
that defined India & Pakistan; in their rush to
redeploy. giving the NUJ boycott of Israel any credibility. Just some examples right off the top.

I prefer papers with an acknowledged bias (my favorite is The Guardian), but I disagree that the unacknowledged bias of most dailies is "liberal". If it was, I would agree with their positions more often.

The problem with the BBC is that they have a mandate to be "unbiased", and they've interpreted this to mean telling both sides of every story (as is well known, every story has exactly two sides ). This excludes non-mainstream positions, and can give an idiotic position the same respect as a good position. Of course, if they try to use their brains and improve their reporting by accepting a bias, they're punished for breaking their mandate.

No, the problem with the BBC is that it is reflexively anti-American, anti-Israel (and often in the process anti-semitic), and they are apologists for Arab terrorists.

Every single source of "news" is biased. Any news source that says it is objective and unbiased is LYING. I have much more respect for a news source (Establishment or Internet based) that states its bias in a story.

At least the BBC is now admitting its bias.