Are your views represented in the news media?

[Rambuchan]

So here's something I found from Lambert's link while sipping my coffee:

BBC/Reuters/Media Center Poll: Trust in the Media
Wednesday 3 May 2006

More people trust the media than their governments, especially in developing countries, according to a ten-country opinion poll for the BBC, Reuters, and The Media Center.

Media is trusted by an average of 61 percent compared to 52 percent for governments across the countries polled.

But the US bucked the trend — with government ahead of media on trust (67% vs 59%) along with Britain (51% vs 47%).

Trust in media was highest in Nigeria (88% vs 34% gov’t.) followed by Indonesia (86% vs 71%), India (82% vs 66%), Egypt (74%, gov’t. not asked), and Russia (58% vs 54%).

National TV was the most trusted news source overall (trusted by 82%, with 16% not trusting it) - followed by national/regional newspapers (75% vs 19%), local newspapers (69% vs 23%), public radio (67% vs 18%), and international satellite TV (56% vs 19%). Internet blogs were the least trusted source (25% vs 23%) – with one in two unable to say whether they trusted them.

TV was also seen as the most 'important' news source (56%) followed by Newspapers (21%), internet (9%) and radio (9%).

One in four (28%) reported abandoning a news source over the last year after losing trust in its content.

A total of 10,230 adults were questioned by GlobeScan in the UK, USA, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, and South Korea in March and April.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html

BBC/Reuters/Media Center Poll: Trust in the Media
Wednesday 3 May 2006

Other key findings included:

• Strong demand across all countries and ages for news: seven in ten (72%) follow news closely every day — including two in three (67%) in the 18-24 age range.

• Two in three people believe news is reported accurately (65%), but more than half (57%) believe governments interfere too much with the media and only 42 percent think journalists can report freely. People are divided on whether the media covers all sides of a story, with 41 percent disagreeing.

• Nigerians believed most strongly that government interferes too much in the media (75%) followed by South Korea (71%), Brazil (64%), Indonesia (59%), Britain (58%), India (56%), and the US (52%).

• Three of four (77%) prefer to check several news sources instead of relying on just one, especially Internet users.

• More men (76%) than women (69%) said they followed the news closely every day.

• Trust in media has increased overall over the last four years — in Britain up from 29 percent to 47 percent and in the US from 52 percent to 59 percent.

• Younger people use online sources most, being the first choice among 19 percent aged between 18 and 24 compared to just 3 percent in the 55-64 age range. But 56 percent overall valued the opportunity to obtain news online — South Koreans being the most enthusiastic at 85 percent. Britain was on 57 percent and the US on 60 percent.

GlobeScan President, Doug Miller, said: "The poll suggests that media is generally trusted across the world
— more so than national governments, particularly in the developing world."

“National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young. The jury is still out on ‘blogs’ — just as many people distrust them as trust them.”

 

[Richard Cribb]

Great thread, even containing an article by evil Chomsky.
And to answer the question in the poll, my views are not represented in dominant media at all, which is why I increasingly have to turn to alternative outlets.
I will offer my thoughts on this later.

a) Not all news agencies & broadcasters are controlled in the way Chomsky implies - the BBC and Reuters for starters don't fit into his model.

Oh, I think BBC might fit nicely, and so does Alan Doherty
This is also something to note:http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1766216,00.html

Absolutely not. Every single new channel has a liberal bias. Every one of them, including FOX.

Really? Why on earth should corporate media have a "liberal" "bias", whatever that means?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Oh, I think BBC might fit nicely, and so does Alan Doherty

I must admit to not knowing who Alex Doherty is, but I find his analysis one-sided and somewhat simplistic. His criticism of the BBC governors, for example, goes into detail about 6 who have ties to business (without really explaining why a diversity of senior level understanding of different industries might be a bad thing) but dismisses the others as "largely apolitical token figures drawn from the arts world and charitable organisations." What's wrong with apolitical figures ? Are the charitable representatives really just yes-men to big business ? The very existence of the BBC governors help maintain its balance, and helps detect when it is not avoiding bias - yes, there are arguments back and forward about the constituency of the board, but we don't get this from Doherty.

Frankly, anyone who concludes that "nevertheless the BBC mostly follows the two party line and it mostly operates as a propaganda weapon" has such a fundamentally different view of the media world than I do that it's difficult to believe that we'd have much common ground to start investigating our differences.

This is also something to note:http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1766216,00.html

This is interesting, and I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is seriously skewed in its coverage of the Israel / Palestine area (though I should point out it's still markedly better than any of the mainstream US broadcasters). Note, however, that this independent review was actually commissioned by the BBC's Board of Governors - which, to me, highlights the generally effective nature of the board, and undermines the Doherty tirade in your first link.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Close contact with the BBC has led me to agree with Greg Dykes conclusion of a few years ago, namely that the BBC is a "south of England, middle-class institution".

Well, I don't like Dykes, though the folk I know at the BBC are/were generally very postive about him. Problem is, the BBC is a very broad organisation.

• In terms of its non-news broadcasting, I think it remains a fairly SE England, middle class institution - though I think they've made tremendous improvements over the last 30 years, and I probably wouldn't argue too hard if people questioned the SE England middle class bit here.
  
• In terms of news gathering ? I'd agree there's a bias towards England, and the UK generally.
  
• In terms of news broadcasting ? Again, there's (unsurprisingly) a tremendous focus on UK matters, and I think a significant pro-UK bias evident in the reporting, say, of EU affairs.

Still doesn't fit in with Chomsky's categorisation, though (perhaps his view is very US media focused ?), and you didn't even start with Reuters (or AFP or AP come to that - I'm not trying to say the Baron is the sole upholder of media integrity)

Easy on the character assasination of the guy .

Oh, I'm sure he'll manage

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru.
I take a wide definition of "the public relations industry".

Err, yes. But taking a wide definition of the PR industry doesn't act as a magical wand to prove the link between government wartime propaganda and the news media which the article is lacking. You're surely not making your definition of the PR industry wide enough to include the BBC and Reuters, are you ? (I might concede the point as far as the Colchester and North Essex Evening Gazette is concerned, however...)

 

[Scuffer]

All my views are represented somewhere, just not in the same place and with many other conflicting views represented. I think that goes for most people, (with the exception of Red Stranger who probably finds Satan too liberal).

I do find those who say there is a liberal bias in media quite funny, as selling ad space in news is subject to precious market forces.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Fox News is 'liberal'? In comparison to whom?

Everyone else! Everyone else is liberal, so the liberals are the norm, and thus, the conservatives are the lone wolves.

Most of the news agencies locally are not biased one way or the other, they tend not to pick sides.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I must admit to not knowing who Alex Doherty is, but I find his analysis one-sided and somewhat simplistic. His criticism of the BBC governors, for example, goes into detail about 6 who have ties to business (without really explaining why a diversity of senior level understanding of different industries might be a bad thing) but dismisses the others as "largely apolitical token figures drawn from the arts world and charitable organisations." What's wrong with apolitical figures ? Are the charitable representatives really just yes-men to big business ? The very existence of the BBC governors help maintain its balance, and helps detect when it is not avoiding bias - yes, there are arguments back and forward about the constituency of the board, but we don't get this from Doherty.

I hardly see it as irrelevant that such a board has a good representation from business but none from organised labour. And regarding the so-called apolitical ones, no they don't have to be yes-people, but they might as well be and are no compensation for not having both labour and capital represented.
I can't speak for the BBC, since I don't follow it so closely, but studies here in Norway has shown beyond doubt that public TV has a clear pro-business bias in economical and labour-oriented topics. I would be very surprised if this was a peculiarity of Norway.

This is interesting, and I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is seriously skewed in its coverage of the Israel / Palestine area (though I should point out it's still markedly better than any of the mainstream US broadcasters). Note, however, that this independent review was actually commissioned by the BBC's Board of Governors - which, to me, highlights the generally effective nature of the board, and undermines the Doherty tirade in your first link.

Personally, I think the comment by Daniel Shek offers food for thoughts.
Apart from that, I can agree that corporate US media hardly surprisingly is (much) worse.

 

[Odin2006]

The US's major news netwrks have become de facto propaganda outlets of the multinational conglomerates that own them.

 

[.Shane.]

Like so many polls, you're asking the wrong question. The job of news media is not "represent my views", but to report on the news objectively. The less of my, your, and their views that are present, the better.

 

[nonconformist]

Like so many polls, you're asking the wrong question. The job of news media is not "represent my views", but to report on the news objectively. The less of my, your, and their views that are present, the better.

This guy's great-he says everything for me, I even love his avatar!

 

[Richard Cribb]

Like so many polls, you're asking the wrong question. The job of news media is not "represent my views", but to report on the news objectively. The less of my, your, and their views that are present, the better.

Fine.
One question only: How do you report political issues "objectively"?

 

[.Shane.]

How do you report political issues "objectively"?

Yeah, I agree that's definitely hard to define and a challenge. That's why there's journalism schools and ethical standards.

I think an equally vexxing question is, "what is news"?

@noncomformist, back 'atcha. Did you pick up the remastered albums last year w/ all the bonus tracks?

 

[nonconformist]

Yeah, I agree that's definitely hard to define and a challenge. That's why there's journalism schools and ethical standards.

I think an equally vexxing question is, "what is news"?

@noncomformist, back 'atcha. Did you pick up the remastered albums last year w/ all the bonus tracks?

I've all the remastered albums bar "Peace and Love", and I don't have any of the post-Shane ones
Now let's stop threadjacking

 

[.Shane.]

I've all the remastered albums bar "Peace and Love", and I don't have any of the post-Shane ones
Now let's stop threadjacking

To the PM-mobile Batman!

See, you can thread jack, you just need to tuck it in w/ some OnTopic comments.

Um.... journalism good... fire... bad?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I hardly see it as irrelevant that such a board has a good representation from business but none from organised labour. And regarding the so-called apolitical ones, no they don't have to be yes-people, but they might as well be and are no compensation for not having both labour and capital represented.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. I agree the make-up of the board isn't irrelevant - my point is that Doherty has already made his mind up on the issue and is just looking to present one side of the argument. I was just highlighting this as typical of the way he presents his case.

I can't speak for the BBC, since I don't follow it so closely, but studies here in Norway has shown beyond doubt that public TV has a clear pro-business bias in economical and labour-oriented topics. I would be very surprised if this was a peculiarity of Norway.

It's better in the UK than it used to be, but in the 1980s for sure it seemed to me (as a paid up lefty) that the BBC and ITV were pathetically pro-business and anti-organised labour. In 2006, business is a much bigger and more representative constituency, and organised labour is as inconsequential and unrepresentative of the general population as it has ever been. I think there is a much more prominent pro-UK bias in the BBC's coverage than a pro-business one, and the latter isn't something that is still strong enough to trouble me.

That said, I have to admit being an awfully strong believer in the effectiveness of the free market for a left winger - maybe I think much of the argument here is done, while you're coming at it from a more planned economy angle; in which case, yes, I'd expect that you'd view the BBC as quite unbalanced in its coverage in this area.