Labour has won both byelections

The BBC has demonstrated its prejudices particularly well over the last few years as have the Mail and the Guardian. I am afraid they hold much responsibility for people seeking out other media. I have no problem with people accessing a range of media and to be honest it's way way too late even if I did.

Yes, and podcasts are no more likely to be 'true' for the reasons I wittered on about described above.

If anything, narrowcast media are more, rather than less likely to manipulate than broadcast ones, as they are frighteningly accurately targeted and play to the beliefs and prejudices of their consumers.

I think legacy media might be a more useful term than MSM, which includes newspapers, channels such as BBC, etc. People in particular young people dont access newspapers in any real numbers, the numbers who listen to long form podcasts for example outshines anything a BBC news programme could hope to achieve.

I think it’s unfair to say he was supposedly a human rights lawyer. I believe he did a lot of work towards the peace process in Ireland and he helped bring Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice. A lot of the work was unpaid too. Please have the decency to give him credit where credit is due.

Starmer was a supposedly human rights lawyer, he got it so wrong, he should have known better. Though not surprising, no mention of Palistine or you get expelled Then goes to a Islamic centre for some good publicity. Didnt say he is Labour leader, who was on LBC saying what he said, later had to 'clarify' what he meant. There is a hierarchy of racism in his LP The Forde Report said anti semitism was given a much greater priority than anti black Muslim racism. The way America and UK is run is so backwards other countries are leading the way improving the their countries and people's lives. America and UK need to wake up. Starmer will be America's lapdog. We deserve better.

But how can we know what is false? I mean if someone wrote a story about people falling off the Earth because it is flat, I would be sceptical. But saying that the POTUS recommended injecting bleach to ward off a virus? Who would have believed that a decade ago? How are we supposed to tell what is true?

I might be more inclined to believe negative (IMO) stories about the Conservative cabinet than someone who saw them as positive or neutral, and is more inclined to look for good in what they do. Someone else would, of course, do the reverse.

I'm also suspicious of 'facts'. People often insist that they have the facts, but defining something as 'fact' draws up the parameters of the discussion. Facts can often be presented (or 'spun' if you like) in various different ways. It might be a fact that only 40% of a town's population use a particular facility that is threatened with being moved, but if another fact is that the 40% represents 90% of the users, then clearly there is a valid argument for it staying put. Fact checkers rarely take those nuances into account, and which facts are selected makes a huge difference to the end result.

Often these decisions are made with a deliberate end in mind, but even if the producers are honest brokers there is human nature to consider. Three people can each tell the story of the same incident in very different ways, with none of them lying. It's just how things work. Then there is the experience and bias of the person at the receiving end, who may be deeply cynical about it, or so pleased about one aspect that they don't consider the small print, or any of a hundred other possible interpretations based on their own beliefs.

I really don't think any of this is straightforward, and I am absolutely not making a case for the 'MSM' being unbiased, but I think people often forget that they are regulated by law, which is not necessarily the case with other sources of information. Of course laws of libel etc apply to everyone, but it is much easier to get to the source of a defamatory article in a tabloid than to pin down someone who starts a rumour online, for instance.

Anyway, I'm rambling .

Doodledog

Casdon

Doodledog

LizzieDrip

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play

Exactly, as well as lack of regulation and therefore accountability.

Oh definitely.

Sorry if people have seen me ask this before, but it's the disdainful use of 'MSM' that interests me, as it does seem to imply that only the easily duped believe anything they read in the papers/see on TV. Obviously nobody would suggest that we believe everything we read, but what are the non-mainstream media that offer an unbiased viewpoint?

If they don't exist (as I suspect), then why do people insist on using 'MSM' as a pejorative term?

I think they do exist, but you have to seek them out, and they don’t tend to be those sources that report news on a live basis. Full Fact springs to mind. These sources are usually underfunded though, and as soon as they expand advertising has an influence on the work they do.
I don’t see MSM as a pejorative term, it just means the most commonly accessed media sources doesn’t it?

If used neutrally then yes, MSM could be defined that way, but it is rarely used like that. More often it is as I said - to suggest that people who use them are gullible.

IMO all media are partisan - they pretty much have to be, as by definition they mediate. Decisions about what to include, which vocabulary to use, how to frame issues etc all influence the final story. Only large organisations can afford to scan the world for stories to report on, and as you say they tend to be reliant on advertising or patronage which removes impartiality at a stroke.

I don’t see how that could be avoided though. In the broadest sense MSM is a neutral term, but people will always put their own interpretations on different publications/sources because they disagree with the bias shown in that particular source, surely? I believe that some sources act more responsibly than others in their interpretation of the facts - whereas others make up stories specifically for the gratification of their supporters. That’s what I object to most, not the interpretation so much as the false pieces of information that are perpetuated.

Casdon

Doodledog

LizzieDrip

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play

Exactly, as well as lack of regulation and therefore accountability.

Oh definitely.

Sorry if people have seen me ask this before, but it's the disdainful use of 'MSM' that interests me, as it does seem to imply that only the easily duped believe anything they read in the papers/see on TV. Obviously nobody would suggest that we believe everything we read, but what are the non-mainstream media that offer an unbiased viewpoint?

If they don't exist (as I suspect), then why do people insist on using 'MSM' as a pejorative term?

I think they do exist, but you have to seek them out, and they don’t tend to be those sources that report news on a live basis. Full Fact springs to mind. These sources are usually underfunded though, and as soon as they expand advertising has an influence on the work they do.
I don’t see MSM as a pejorative term, it just means the most commonly accessed media sources doesn’t it?

If used neutrally then yes, MSM could be defined that way, but it is rarely used like that. More often it is as I said - to suggest that people who use them are gullible.

IMO all media are partisan - they pretty much have to be, as by definition they mediate. Decisions about what to include, which vocabulary to use, how to frame issues etc all influence the final story. Only large organisations can afford to scan the world for stories to report on, and as you say they tend to be reliant on advertising or patronage which removes impartiality at a stroke.

Doodledog

LizzieDrip

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play

Exactly, as well as lack of regulation and therefore accountability.

Oh definitely.

Sorry if people have seen me ask this before, but it's the disdainful use of 'MSM' that interests me, as it does seem to imply that only the easily duped believe anything they read in the papers/see on TV. Obviously nobody would suggest that we believe everything we read, but what are the non-mainstream media that offer an unbiased viewpoint?

If they don't exist (as I suspect), then why do people insist on using 'MSM' as a pejorative term?

I think they do exist, but you have to seek them out, and they don’t tend to be those sources that report news on a live basis. Full Fact springs to mind. These sources are usually underfunded though, and as soon as they expand advertising has an influence on the work they do.
I don’t see MSM as a pejorative term, it just means the most commonly accessed media sources doesn’t it?

LizzieDrip

^It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play^

Exactly, as well as lack of regulation and therefore accountability.

Oh definitely.

Sorry if people have seen me ask this before, but it's the disdainful use of 'MSM' that interests me, as it does seem to imply that only the easily duped believe anything they read in the papers/see on TV. Obviously nobody would suggest that we believe everything we read, but what are the non-mainstream media that offer an unbiased viewpoint?

If they don't exist (as I suspect), then why do people insist on using 'MSM' as a pejorative term?

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play

Exactly, as well as lack of regulation and therefore accountability.

Doodledog

LizzieDrip

I was looking across the piece to include newspapers as well as tv. Of course, many people disregard both of these outlets now and get their ‘news’ via social media … but that’s a completely different ball game!

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play.

This is quite interesting Doodledog. One of the issues that’s there is so much information about media use and bias out there, you can end up going round in circles.
www.digitalnewsreport.org/

LizzieDrip

I was looking across the piece to include newspapers as well as tv. Of course, many people disregard both of these outlets now and get their ‘news’ via social media … but that’s a completely different ball game!

It's still often mainstream though - although algorithms and echo chambers come into play.

Which media are not 'MSM', and how do they compare for reliability?

I have asked this before, and haven't had an answer. Aren't media by definition mainstream? They are communication channels that mediate between events and readers/viewers/listeners who were not at the scene of those events. Yes, that could potentially include a man down the pub talking about a local incident, but on the whole the term is used to describe far more widely consumed sources of information.

I'd be interested to hear what people mean by MSM when they use it to suggest that they have access to alternative sources of information.

Casdon I think LizzieDrip made a good point - news on social media is attracting an audience. This means less influence by traditional media outlets so change of dynamic? Interesting.

I think we’ll find that’s just the facts regarding Sunak ronib? Time will tell, as you say.
You can’t rely on one assessment of bias, I’d agree, but there are lots of sources with independent research saying the same thing it gains much more credibility.

Casdon I don’t read the Daily Express but check the Guardian regularly online. I am constantly reading about how bad Rishi Sunak is and how he can’t hold the Conservative Party together - well UK politics is entering new territory and we shall just have to wait and see.
I don’t know if assessment is ever value free btw.

ronib

The Guardian has a very anti Conservative bias and is on a par with the Daily Express in anti Labour propaganda. Wherein lies truth?

Would you like to see some unbiased assessments of UK media ronib? It’s not just people on Gransnet saying there is overall a bias to the right, it is fact. Of course some media isn’t right biased, but a very good proportion of it is. By the way, the Guardian is a lot more factually accurate than the Express, also evidenced.

The Guardian has a very anti Conservative bias and is on a par with the Daily Express in anti Labour propaganda. Wherein lies truth?

ronib

LizzieDrip not the BBC?
Interesting how perceptions vary.

It’s certainly interesting how perceptions vary. There’s no doubt that MSM leans to the right though, and will find any possible means to discredit Starmer. What is interesting to me is that people seem to know that’s the case, and are ignoring the wilder attempts. I enjoy laughing at what the Daily Express comes up with on a daily basis, it’s so transparent that it’s hilarious.

I was looking across the piece to include newspapers as well as tv. Of course, many people disregard both of these outlets now and get their ‘news’ via social media … but that’s a completely different ball game!

LizzieDrip not the BBC?
Interesting how perceptions vary.

I think the MSM wants a Conservative government and will do everything in its considerable power to lead voters in that direction.

LizzieDrip I thought the MSM wanted a change of government here?
Keir Starmer seems to have a higher profile with both the Muslim and Jewish communities in the Uk than Rishi Sunak. It might be the turning point against Labour in the next election?

Exactly Doodledog… and of course the MSM will seize every opportunity to discredit Starmer between now and the GE.