[Jiggly]

When watching the news in various countries, I noticed differences in how news channels presented their coverage. I compared the BBCs efforts to come across impartial, to the heavily biased representations from CNN, Fox, and NBC to name a few. However, I could easily argue that the BBC shows bias at times, despite the fact they have an entire page on their website dedicated to explaining how they strive "for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair".

This got me thinking, how important is it to have impartial, and objective news in our digital age?

When reading a blog-style article on the topic, I read some interesting commentary quoted from Marc Andreessen in support of bias in media:

Code:

The practice of gathering all sides of an issue, and keeping an editorial voice out of it is still relevant for some, but the broad journalism opportunity includes many variations of subjectivity. … the objective approach is only one way to tell stories and get at truth. Many stories don’t have ‘two sides.’ Indeed, presenting an event or an issue with a point of view can have even more impact, and reach an audience otherwise left out of the conversation.

Another interesting comment was quoted from Peggy Noonan, from the Wall Street Journal (11th May 2011), where she wrote:

Code:

Here is the fact of the age: People believe nothing. They think everything is spin and lies. The minute a government says A is true, half the people on Earth know A is a lie. And when people believe nothing, as we know, they will believe anything

What are your thoughts on the matter?
Should there be bias in media, especially digital media?
Or, should all outlets strive to remain objective and impartial? Should there be a mixture of both, with some channels becoming known as the "biased" ones, and others as impartial?
How realistic is impartial/objective news?

[OversouL]

This certainly has become a problem in my country. This is mostly common on the topic of politics. I think the media should be the source of raw News and not poisoned with personal opinions. They should also choose the title carefully, because apparently people are stupid enough to react without actually reading the article first.

But in the end, it's all about the money. You gain more traffic when you can spark some outrage.

[mothered]

However, I could easily argue that the BBC shows bias at times

It's all about presenting the news In a manner to attract as much attention as possible to capture their audience, hence outweigh the competition.

In my view, It's not right at all. I'd like to read an event for "what It Is", rather than characterized by what they (the news) make It out to be.

[Jiggly]

I feel much the same as yourselves. I understand why these companies do what they do, but I wish it wasn't the case. However, there is a noticeable difference between some approaches, compared to others. I appreciate a company that at least tries to frame their news as objectively as possible. BBC isn't as trustworthy and transparent as they would have you believe, but I do go to them over many others.

[Miamoo]

Objectivity and Impartiality in news coverage is thing of the past. With hundreds of news channels, it is now more of a war between the channels themselves as to who gives out breaking news first. Honest journalism is replaced with cooking up stories and fake news, irrelevant discussion, all for the sake of viewership.