British Media. Let’s have a change please!

I tend to have a quick glance daily at the BBC, The Telegraph and The Guardian to get some balance. It's like reading about completely different worlds. I use Ground News to find blind spots. It shows pieces of news and how often they are reported by left/central/right-leaning media sources. You can clearly see the trends, how some "news" are actually an agenda, only pushed by one side, while there's silence around other topics. I wish the BBC was still reliable, but they tend to bury certain content while clearly favouring certain views.

I feel that thes days we are governed by the press and not politicians. Because we now have 24 hour news, it has to be sensationalised to grab our attention. With newspapers fighting for sales to survive, they are less objective in their reporting, sensational headlines, stories about the royal family grab paying readers.

These days The Times gets more like what used to be called ‘the gutter press’, presumably for financial reasons. As news bombards us all day long, people absorb the predominant views and demand parliament pay heed. Then, conscious of their voters, politicians respond.

I feel that these days we are governed by the press and not politicians. Because we now have 24 hour news, it has to be sensationalised to grab our attention. With newspapers fighting for sales to survive, they are less objective in their reporting ..
They are chasing sales/clicks/exposure.

In case people are not aware you can read any paper on laptop or phone for free if you are on BorrowBox which simply requires a library card/number from your local library.

I recommend very strongly listening to R4 news, yes, old style actual listening it goes into matters in depth. And the many podcasts on a whole range of subjects available, check out the BBC I player website. The world Service broadcasts are invaluable too

As someone said every evening and lasting well into the nest morning morning the I player news website has ALL the big newspapers front pages up, and a brief description of headline news and the many podcasts on a whole range of subjects available, check out the BBC I player website. The world Service broadcasts are invaluable too.

It's useful then to follow up any news report at all by googling the topic and a whole range f responses come up to delve into. If I want to see responses in the USA I might check out both CNN and Fox News for example, but more alternatives come up too

yes go to Al Jazerra and Haaretz, dont read the quote, read and decide for yourself: if you want a more right wing view, googling produces loads of entries including newscasts from GB news and so on.

ON TV Channel 4 has a more "guardian" take on events and of course GB if you want right wing.

as regards the written word both sky and Reuters often reproduce articles from the whole range of newspapers the very next day with no paywall

There has never been objective news. Just news that reflects our values back to us so appear objective. This applies right back to the start of newsapers in the 18th century.

I am another that finds the BBC as good, if not better than most. They have a verification unit whose conclusions on any news item they investigate are posted as a news item.

Not all libraries using BorrowBox offer newspapers. I have to use press reader with my library card.

isn't Objective news just the one that substantiates your rightwing or leftie political convictions?

butterandjam

Try Al Jazeera.

I'm not poking or joking. It's often worth reading.

Al Jazeera was our favoured source for a long time,
factual, concise, subsequently affiliated with the BBC.
It is essential to understand who are the underwriters
of this newschannel when assessing balance with bias.

M0nica

There has never been objective news. Just news that reflects our values back to us so appear objective. This applies right back to the start of newsapers in the 18th century.

I am another that finds the BBC as good, if not better than most. They have a verification unit whose conclusions on any news item they investigate are posted as a news item.

Yes, I start there: they do always refer to sources so we can check them out for ourselves: try watching it right now and tell us what is "biased" in it?

Yes Reuters: Widely considered the most unbiased news source.

twaddle

I know this won't be universally popular, but the BBC is still one of my "go to" news sources. At least they usually give sources, which can then be followed up.

The Bbc website is still good and balanced views can be found but the News channel is a waste of space and money. It should be done away with and news go back to bulletins through the day.

The problem with the concept of objective news is that ‘news’ is the reporting of events through the eyes of journalists, and they can no more be objective than any of us. It doesn’t have to be deliberate bias - if a tree fell over and three people reported it, one might concentrate on the weather conditions that caused it, another on the council cutbacks in the gardens department and the third on the fledglings that died in the fall. All ‘facts’ but telling different stories.

I’m another without a ‘home’ when it comes to news. I used to read the Guardian, but got sick of the way it pushed the trans agenda. I currently read the i, but don’t love it.

I think the BBC are still up there when it comes to checking their sources etc. I don't find them too biased either especially now they balance Israeli spokesmen with someone from the opposing side.
I'm not great at checking different sources so probably shouldn't be commenting but I too think the mainstream ones have all moved to the right a shade.

I still read The Guardian online Doodledog, but tend to avoid certain journalists, who overtly push an agenda.

The problem with the concept of objective news is that ‘news’ is the reporting of events through the eyes of journalists, and they can no more be objective than any of us

I think I can deal with that. It is the deliberate making of news that bugs me. They do not actually have to lie - they just have to plug a person/organisation to make it news when in fact there are far more important things going on. We hear what the media want us to hear.

I read online sometimes, but don't subscribe. I will cancel my subscription to the i when I can find something better.

I’m not sure I agree with that assessment of the concept of objective news. Responsible news reporting takes a number of different accounts from a range of sources, and doesn’t leap to spurious conclusions. It’s also more likely to draw parallels with previous events when looking at what the consequences might be.

In which case it is opinion, not ‘news’.