http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37924687
>Rise of the undesirables
>During the decade-long debate over same-sex marriage, I often argued with other journalists about our openly slanted coverage of the issue, which amounted to cheerleading for the pro-gay side. Don't we have a professional obligation to tell the other side of the story? I would ask. Well, came the reply, do you think the media had an obligation to be fair to the Ku Klux Klan during the Civil Rights struggle?
>It was just that simple for so many journalists. We pride ourselves on being realists, but in fact we have a fatal weakness for construing the world as crude morality plays. This left many of us in no position to understand why people might resent the Obama administration ordering public schools to open up locker rooms of the opposite sex to transgender students, or why white people might see the Black Lives Matter movement as a racist and illiberal response to the problem of police brutality.
>The people who run newsrooms agonise over diversity. They will go to any length to increase racial, gender, and sexual diversity, but care nothing about viewpoint diversity. In one newsroom where I worked the only religious conservatives besides me were the African-American secretaries. Nobody there thought this was a problem. To the contrary, they believed that religious conservatives, among other undesirable demographic categories, were the problem.
>But yesterday, these undesirables, Trump's forgotten people, proved to be a majority of the electorate. If they believe that news coverage is - what's the word? - rigged against people like them, well, they're more right than wrong.
This doesn't forgive the BBC, more than it continues to implicate mass media as a source of propaganda and brainwashing. What does /news/ think? Is journalistic integrity still a thing? Or should journalists skew viewpoints for the "greater good"?
>>84247
You can't have people acting for the greater good, because who decides what the greater good is?
>>84247
I don't feel like your subject is accurate. This is an editorial written by an American who doesn't even work for the BBC.
I'm definitely tired of reading news articles which openly display left-wing bias- despite my political views falling by and large to the left both socially and fiscally.
The BBC is the news company that constantly gets criticised for being too left wing by right wingers, and too right wing by left wingers. It's the news company that put the leader of the British National Party (pretty much our farthest right wing party that's still legal) in a TV debate, against opposition across the whole political spectrum.
If you're out to criticise the MSM for lack of balance, the BBC would be the wrong place to start tbh.
>>84369
>(pretty much our farthest right wing party that's still legal)
bnp were centrists just like hitler, stop using right wing to describe everything bad because it just make you look dumb, the bnp were actually to the left of labour in the 2010 election
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Love this. We feed too much into the emotionality of situations and put too much trust into the agenda of the media. Stop being lazy, get the true facts. If something peaks your interest don't take it for face value.
>>84487
no, only THEY react too emotionally!
That could be true but I don't know that media is more biased than it used to be. The "brainwashing" might still be a reality because we've never seen this level of isolation of ideological factions in terms of their information sources. That's not conducive to a nuanced (accurate) worldview and building essential consensus.
Ultimately, the onus has to be on individuals to resist the temptation of certainty in their worldview and to make an effort to not just understand the ideas of the opposition and appreciate their grievances.
>>84346
^this, but why would "The American Conservative" be left-leaning?
>>84557
My girlfriend and I often laugh about how competitive we are, but I laugh more.
Isn't this only a problem if you assume the people who get their news from a certain outlet don't already know about and probably agree with that outlet's prejudices?
I mean, everyone who listens to NPR knows they're going to hear a LOT of human interest stories about sexual identity and race.
>>84581
if you can, read a newspaper, straight news )non-editorial, non-feature), from 10 to 15 years ago, and compare it to any non-editorial, non-feature news of today
you'll notice the vast difference in how the news is presented, specifically in how there is an inclination as to _how_ it is narrated
the news of today are the tabloids of yesterday. professionalism was left for granted in favor of fishing for more buck
MSNBC also admitted their biases when talking about why Trump won
>How many people Making under 60K do you know
>Whole panel shakes their heads
They also admitted that the Dems focus too much on a collection of pet social issues instead of a larger message, and that rural working poor and the Union workers need to be acknowledged by the Left again.
I was quite shocked.