This mainly applies to the meek US media, but its an enlightening explanation of what should be obvious:

Quote from: Cenk UygurThe media isnt supposed to be neutral - it is supposed to be objective. There is an enormous difference between the two. And this is a difference that has been lost on the mainstream media for quite awhile now.

Conservatives have shouted from the rooftops that the media isnt being fair to them when they report news that shows conservatives in a bad light.
But it isnt the medias job to decide what is and is not fair to any political party. Their job is to report the news -- whatever it might be.

Republicans have pulled a very effective switcheroo on the press, substituting the concept of neutrality for objectivity. Whenever the press dares to report something that does not reflect well on the Republican Party, it gets accused of having a "bias." As Stephen Colbert would say, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

If the media reports on a story objectively and it does damage to the Republicans, that is not a bias. That is a sad day for the Republican Party. The truth hurts. Of course, the same is true of the Democratic Party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-media-isnt-supposed-_b_20521.html

Im not sure how similar your tabloids or press in general are t ours, but its usually pretty easy to spot biased versus objective reporting.

Quote from: Clockd 0NeIm not sure how similar your tabloids or press in general are t ours, but its usually pretty easy to spot biased versus objective reporting.

This is about phony neutrality standing in for objectivism. In recent years the far right wingnuts have demanded airtime and stations have given in, thinking that extremist views must represented in order to be fair.

Clockd just go over to foxnews.com and have a look at some of the editorial videos there, you are almost guaranteed to end up with something that is highly biased towards the Republican point of view.

I can appreciate that, but as you should know Serious this side of the pond we know the bias of each newspaper available and pick accordingly, Im assuming the same is done over there?

American newspapermen have, for at least the last half century, have been a righteous lot, striving for objectivism and truth. Same went for the old "voice of God" TV newsmen. Political bias was traditionally allowed on the back pages of the main section, in the "op/ed" and letters department, where youd have your various partisan screaming heads.

You have mild leanings, mainly in op-ed representation: the Chicago Sun-Times leans liberal, while the Tribune is a bit more moderate. Nothing crazy. Even the Wall Street Journal is just mildly conservative.

Now, though, its been branded as the "liberal media" by the right, simply because of all the scandals over the last few years involving republicans--and they demand "neutrality"--that if the papers/TV cover negative stories about the pubs, then they should be neutral and find and publish nasties about the center (we have no real left, fwiw).

The media, well the old guard newspapers, have lost their backbone here. They used to be a quite self-righteous truth serving lot, at least between the 50s era of McCarthyism and the beginning of Clinton. Since the "Republican Revolution" of the mid 90s, theyve lost it.

Objectivity in news means publishing the most important stories of the day, whether or not they are detrimental to the image of one group or another, there shouldnt be a need to wear kid gloves or to try to "balance" out the bad with the neutrality meme.

Quote from: Clockd 0NeI can appreciate that, but as you should know Serious this side of the pond we know the bias of each newspaper available and pick accordingly, Im assuming the same is done over there?

Its all here better than I could put it.

http://www.tekforums.co.uk/posts/list/1339.page

Very nice.