Anyway outlet online to find independent and unbiased reporting on news issues?

euser1984

for example: At some of the shell to sea campaign reportings, the articles in at least one mainstream "broadsheet" type newspaper stated; that violence has broken out between protesters and gardai.

What the publisher seems to have failed to mention, is that the police started the violence when they charged the protesters with batons, so they could clear the way for shell workers/contractors to get into work.

euser1984

euser1984 wrote: »

for example: At some of the shell to sea campaign reportings, the articles in at least one mainstream "broadsheet" type newspaper stated; that violence has broken out between protesters and gardai.

What the publisher seems to have failed to mention, is that the police started the violence when they charged the protesters with batons, so they could clear the way for shell workers/contractors to get into work.

But sure if they weren't stopping people going to work there wouldn't have been any violence either.

Magico Gonzalez

There is no neutral news source, none. All news comes with bias, the best you can hope for is to identify the least biased source and be intelligent enough to realise that each of have our own bias and we seek confirmation of it through the media we consume.

Chijj

bubblypop wrote: »

But sure if they weren't stopping people going to work there wouldn't have been any violence either.

In saying that if our soul wasn't sold for 30 pieces of silver there would be no violence either.

Samaris

Your only real option is to read widely. Read everything that covers the stories that you're interested in and figure out for yourself which correlates most closely with your own bias - sorry, I mean, which seems to cover only the facts and doesn't give opinion.

Okay, I'm not really sorry, but where did you get that information yourself? Unless you were there, you have chosen to place more weight on one story than the other. Even if you WERE there, without a neutral, preferably birds-eye, view, it's still very hard to tell who started what.

My asides aside, the answer is still the same. Read everything on the story, whether it comes from the Guardian, the Times, Journal.ie, The Sun, Boards (gods help you) and -keep- asking yourself "Where does the author's sympathies lie and which side is s/he more likely to be looking at in a more kindly light" while keeping your own biases and "gut instincts" firmly out of the picture.

Duggy747

euser1984 wrote: »

What the publisher seems to have failed to mention, is that the police started the violence when they charged the protesters with batons, so they could clear the way for shell workers/contractors to get into work.

But what's the source for that information? Did you witness that or was it from another source?

In terms of news outlet, you really have to spread yourself out to various sources as many places will use choice quotes or their authors will add their own personal / political bias to the piece.

Winterlong

indynews used to be a little bit indy, but is now overwhelmingly biased.

euser1984

bubblypop wrote: »

But sure if they weren't stopping people going to work there wouldn't have been any violence either.

Yeah but you have prefered to know it was the garda that started it rather than it misleadingly making people believe it was the protesters.

euser1984

euser1984 wrote: »

Yeah but you have prefered to know it was the garda that started it rather than it misleadingly making people believe it was the protesters.

But the protestors obviously started it, stopping people going to work

Samaris

euser1984 wrote: »

Yeah but you have prefered to know it was the garda that started it rather than it misleadingly making people believe it was the protesters.

You're still avoiding the question. What's the source that you have placed more weight on and why?

Maximus Alexander

Read a variety of news sources. The parts that they all agree on are the facts. For the parts that none of them agree on, the truth is in the middle.

euser1984

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

There is no neutral news source, none. All news comes with bias, the best you can hope for is to identify the least biased source and be intelligent enough to realise that each of have our own bias and we seek confirmation of it through the media we consume.

I know but I think most of the mainstream media talks like this and is complete bias as opposed to fact. There not separated and thus it's misleading.

Samaris wrote: »

Your only real option is to read widely. Read everything that covers the stories that you're interested in and figure out for yourself which correlates most closely with your own bias - sorry, I mean, which seems to cover only the facts and doesn't give opinion.

Okay, I'm not really sorry, but where did you get that information yourself? Unless you were there, you have chosen to place more weight on one story than the other. Even if you WERE there, without a neutral, preferably birds-eye, view, it's still very hard to tell who started what.

My asides aside, the answer is still the same. Read everything on the story, whether it comes from the Guardian, the Times, Journal.ie, The Sun, Boards (gods help you) and -keep- asking yourself "Where does the author's sympathies lie and which side is s/he more likely to be looking at in a more kindly light" while keeping your own biases and "gut instincts" firmly out of the picture.

I like the last sentence in your first paragraph and I wonder how there isn't a news source that just focus on facts; the reader may then decide his bias without vested interests involved.

Duggy747 wrote: »

But what's the source for that information? Did you witness that or was it from another source?

In terms of news outlet, you really have to spread yourself out to various sources as many places will use choice quotes or their authors will add their own personal / political bias to the piece.

I won't go into sources because it happens all the time, the above is just an example. today on rte news when talking about the anglo court case the reported finished by saying one of the jury was hospitalized and gave no reason! how do you interpret that? is it because they couldn't cope or maybe they just had a car crash, in your view what does hospitalized indicate?

I don't believe bias has any place here if your intention is to inform people because it makes people think it's the protesters when in actual fact it was the gardai....that's state bias and misleading.

euser1984

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Read a variety of news sources. The parts that they all agree on are the facts. For the parts that none of them agree on, the truth is in the middle.

Do you think that any media outlet would have said the gardai started the violence? it's easier just to blame it on the powerless protesters albeit indirectly. would you attempt to tell a family member the story like that?

how does personal opinion and bias fit in this particular example?

Duggy747

I'm always weary of any news coming from Corrib.

Shell 2 Sea protesters have given themselves a very bad reputation for any source of news given the behaviour from some of them throughout the years, especially that absolute dirt tactic that was the rape tape against the Gardaí.

euser1984

Samaris wrote: »

You're still avoiding the question. What's the source that you have placed more weight on and why?

I was at a panel in a conference at the weekend when we were shown many examples.

it's also known that generally speaking most opinions come from middle aged non working class type people, and also men. gender inequality is even at play here.

another example is nobody is interested in what the syrian refugees have to say. I saw videos at the weekend of them talking.

some people went and made a microphone and camera out of rubbish product waste and went around interviewing asylum seekers.....it made them feel like at least they got the need to have a voice out. no mainstream media cares apart from the likes of euronews etc. i think they give facts....

Louis theroux is always giving people a voice that we would never hear of otherwise.....

euser1984

Duggy747 wrote: »

I'm always weary of any news coming from Corrib.

Let's not forget Shell 2 Sea protesters have given themselves a very bad reputation for any source of news given the behaviour from some of them throughout the years, especially that absolute dirt tactic that was the rape tape against the Gardaí.

this is besides the point and also the shell to sea protesters had no problem with shell taking the gas. it's a high pressure gas system and they just wanted a reconfiguration so it was not as close to their homes.

osarusan

euser1984 wrote: »

it's also known that generally speaking most opinions come from middle aged non working class type people, and also men.

huh?

What opinions? Where?

HensVassal

bubblypop wrote: »

But the protestors obviously started it, stopping people going to work

Those poor workers. All they wanted to do was do an honest day's graft fleecing Ireland's citizens of their natural resources and giving the proceeds over to corporate vulture.

euser1984

osarusan wrote: »

huh?

What opinions? Where?

there was a professor from dcu there with a report they have done (about a fifty page report I think).

if you really want the link I'll attempt to fish it out....actually I might have a video of the discussion.

Raging_Ninja

euser1984 wrote: »

I won't go into sources because it happens all the time, the above is just an example. today on rte news when talking about the anglo court case the reported finished by saying one of the jury was hospitalized and gave no reason! how do you interpret that? is it because they couldn't cope or maybe they just had a car crash, in your view what does hospitalized indicate?

Or they just don't know why somebody was hospitalized. Never mind the ethics of discussing somebody's health issues in the media, it would be a fairly serious breach of doctor/patient confidentiality if the reason for the hospitalization was given out by anybody other than the patient.

Cienciano

If the Gardaí started anything against the Shell To Sea protesters, there'd be a video of it. The Shell To Sea have being protesting and filming for years, but still haven't managed a video of the Gardaí behaving badly.
I'd be very wary of anything that comes out of the shell to sea camp, and I'm no fan of the Gardaí either.

euser1984

doesn't seem to be there but this is the website... http://neartv.ie/

it's a community tv licence that they have. community tv and radio given anyone who so wishes to have a voice and can transmit within an 8 mile radius. it was a community radio craoel conference and workshop even that the panel discussion was on at the weekend.

Duggy747

euser1984 wrote: »

this is besides the point and also the shell to sea protesters had no problem with shell taking the gas. it's a high pressure gas system and they just wanted a reconfiguration so it was not as close to their homes.

Given that we're talking about biases and sources I think it's pretty much relevant in terms of looking at multiple sources for information in an attempt to get the full picture.

thegreatgonzo

euser1984 wrote: »

it's also known that generally speaking most opinions come from middle aged non working class type people, and also men. gender inequality is even at play here...Louis theroux is always giving people a voice that we would never hear of otherwise.....

I'm fairly certain he isn't a young working class woman.

Raging_Ninja

HensVassal wrote: »

Those poor workers. All they wanted to do was do an honest day's graft fleecing Ireland's citizens of their natural resources and giving the proceeds over to corporate vulture.

Nobody was fleeced out of anything. Nobody was tricked out of anything. Some people just don't like the terms of the contract, and some others don't like how the gas is being brought ashore..

Tipperary Fairy

HensVassal wrote: »

Those poor workers. All they wanted to do was do an honest day's graft fleecing Ireland's citizens of their natural resources and giving the proceeds over to corporate vulture.

Besides there really being no difference between Shell and say ESB, as they're both fleecing as you put it, do you think you should be attacked or refused access to work because some group take issue with your boss / company?

euser1984

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Or they just don't know why somebody was hospitalized. Never mind the ethics of discussing somebody's health issues in the media, it would be a fairly serious breach of doctor/patient confidentiality if the reason for the hospitalization was given out by anybody other than the patient.

it's not about discussing health issues on air. it's just the way that hospitalization thing would be interpreted perhaps and it's not really that relevant. hospitalized is a serious work to use also and adds drama to the big anglo thing which is good news; because it brings emotional response in people. I think the only agenda with that was sensationalization.

i talk on community radio and i wouldn't add that and if somebody did I would question them and rightly so. would you tell a story like that?

euser1984

Duggy747 wrote: »

Given that we're talking about biases and sources I think it's pretty much relevant in terms of looking at multiple sources for information in an attempt to get the full picture.

I agree of course but with the way things have gone with select few corporations taking control of the media industry I think this is how all the mainstream media works.

rte has the biggest market share in this country of media influence and they do their stories like this too.

newstalk, todayfm, dublin98, irish independent plus others are owned by independent media which denis o brien owns 30 percent of.....he is also a business man first and foremost (altho some might argue he is many other things too but that's not for here)

Raging_Ninja

euser1984 wrote: »

it's not about discussing health issues on air. it's just the way that hospitalization thing would be interpreted perhaps and it's not really that relevant. hospitalized is a serious work to use also and adds drama to the big anglo thing which is good news; because it brings emotional response in people. I think the only agenda with that was sensationalization.

i talk on community radio and i wouldn't add that and if somebody did I would question them and rightly so. would you tell a story like that?

You're grasping at straws here. What other word would you use to describe being sent to hospital?

Hospitalized means you were sent to hospital. Doesn't imply anything about the serious of the condition.

euser1984

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Besides there really being no difference between Shell and say ESB, as they're both fleecing as you put it, do you think you should be attacked or refused access to work because some group take issue with your boss / company?

how would you feel if there was a high pressure gas line being placed close to your house? then, how would you feel if all you asked for was for it to be moved further away but everyone thought you were just totally against gas being taken from the sea near you at all?

and then how would you feel about how the media completely ignored this and went for the sensationalist story to sell papers and to avoid getting into solicitor fees with shell etc. ,thus, as an irish citizen being worried for all your other irish citizens that this is the way things are being done? thats gross injustice to them, me and also to you!

PARlance

euser1984 wrote: »

this is besides the point and also the shell to sea protesters had no problem with shell taking the gas. it's a high pressure gas system and they just wanted a reconfiguration so it was not as close to their homes.

A bit of misinformation there.

The Shell to Sea movement didn't campaign for a reconfiguration, they want/ed it processed out at Sea. The clue is in the name.

A break away group was formed when the majority of local Shell to Sea'ers released they wouldn't win that battle and instead turned their attention to a rerouting of the pipeline.

There's a good Irish documentary called "The Pipe" based on the whole saga. It's biased towards the protesters which is probably the "unbiased" angle you're looking for.

euser1984

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

You're grasping at straws here. What other word would you use to describe being sent to hospital?

Hospitalized means you were sent to hospital. Doesn't imply anything about the serious of the condition.

I really do feel that your being naive here and also I would question if you have vented interests. otherwise maybe you just don't care. the reality is that it's a problem. the world knows it, many others know it but you don't or don't care.

euser1984

PARlance wrote: »

A bit of misinformation there.

The Shell to Sea movement didn't campaign for a reconfiguration, they want/ed it processed out at Sea. The clue is in the name.

A break away group was formed when the majority of local Shell to Sea'ers released they wouldn't win that battle and instead turned their attention to a rerouting of the pipeline.

There's a good Irish documentary called "The Pipe" based on the whole saga. It's biased towards the protesters which is probably the "unbiased" angle you're looking for.

ok then.

The pipe actually was showed in lots of countries and very successfully and was first shown years ago. rte has never showed it and it took tv3 four years to show it. they only showed it once too afaik. (despite it being huge in other countries)

euser1984

PARlance wrote: »

There's a good Irish documentary called "The Pipe" based on the whole saga. It's biased towards the protesters which is probably the "unbiased" angle you're looking for.

doesn't everyone already know the shell side of the story though? it just balances things out perhaps?

osarusan

To be honest OP, it looks like for you, a source that portrays the protestors in a positive light will be independent and unbiased, and a source that doesn't, won't.

Duggy747

OP, I can't help but feel in your thread about unbiased news sources you're here with a bias yourself looking for something to back up what you believe in.

HensVassal

euser1984 wrote: »

for example: At some of the shell to sea campaign reportings, the articles in at least one mainstream "broadsheet" type newspaper stated; that violence has broken out between protesters and gardai.

What the publisher seems to have failed to mention, is that the police started the violence when they charged the protesters with batons, so they could clear the way for shell workers/contractors to get into work.

Are you talking about international events and news or just Ireland?

euser1984

osarusan wrote: »

To be honest OP, it looks like for you, a source that portrays the protestors in a positive light will be independent and unbiased, and a source that doesn't, won't.

I don't live anywhere near the protestors not do I have any particular interest in them....I was just using them as an example.

what I started the thread for was to find out if there is a source where I can find out both sides of any story via factual data and make my own mind up.

if the author wants to add their own opinion I would prefer it to be clearly stated and not hiding.

thinking of no comment on euronews for example....

The_Kew_Tour

Vice news is excellent for showing videos of both sides of argument too. Not really news channel more short reports but very good

PARlance

euser1984 wrote: »

ok then.

The pipe actually was showed in lots of countries and very successfully and was first shown years ago. rte has never showed it and it took tv3 four years to show it. they only showed it once too afaik. (despite it being huge in other countries)

TG4 aired it shortly after it was made afaik. Massively state funded.

euser1984

HensVassal wrote: »

Are you talking about international events and news or just Ireland?

Ireland specifically yes....i think europe is already covered somewhat but I want to learn more about euronews to see if they are pro eu because i never thought about these things until the conference. i think al jazeera might be one too.

if i'm right the guardian is half decent too but i'm also looking into that.

I read the news on radio and prepare it myself...I know that I have the option to tell people what to think or to tell them the facts....the problem I have is it seems very difficult in this country to get the facts! especially when politics is all about pr too.

euser1984

PARlance wrote: »

TG4 aired it shortly after it was made afaik. State broadcaster.

ok, well maybe it's to do with corporate advertising or something then.....must be some good reason why rte didn't show it....

LorMal

The Guardian and the BBC.

Duggy747

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Vice news is excellent for showing videos of both sides of argument too. Not really news channel more short reports but very good

Personally not a big fan of Vice, they have a terrible habit of sending unqualified people out to places that ultimately bring down highly interesting subjects and topics.

Many times their reporters are left in the dust by their subject or interviewee. Martin Shkreli, for example, ran rings around a girl in a Vice interview who went in angry and unprepared against him where he then got to dictate how it went.

I really do like some of their documentaries that have no presenter or narrator, though. The Aokigahara Forest and the suicides in the area is probably my favourite one from them.

mynamejeff

euser1984 wrote: »

I don't live anywhere near the protestors not do I have any particular interest in them....I was just using them as an example.

what I started the thread for was to find out if there is a source where I can find out both sides of any story via factual data and make my own mind up.

if the author wants to add their own opinion I would prefer it to be clearly stated and not hiding.

thinking of no comment on euronews for example....

might be you just picked a bad example. but your view of the shell to sea saga is ironically very biased.

The only side who run a media job is the shell to sea side. The gardai almost never push a strong view on incidents.

I do know some of the protester groups fairly well and i can tell you from first hand experience there are some very very bad eggs who are only involved for self promotion and because it allows them to be involved in violence and intimidation, trying to provoke reaction from workmen or gardai . Its always out with the video camera then. thats why after many many years of protesting and policing and hundreds of complaints to gsoc there has never been a garda in trouble.

or is gsoc corrupt in favor of the garda s most of the shell to sea group claim

ohnonotgmail

mynamejeff wrote: »

might be you just picked a bad example. but your view of the shell to sea saga is ironically very biased.

The only side who run a media job is the shell to sea side. The gardai almost never push a strong view on incidents.

I do know some of the protester groups fairly well and i can tell you from first hand experience there are some very very bad eggs who are only involved for self promotion and because it allows them to be involved in violence and intimidation, trying to provoke reaction from workmen or gardai . Its always out with the video camera then. thats why after many many years of protesting and policing and hundreds of complaints to gsoc there has never been a garda in trouble.

or is gsoc corrupt in favor of the garda s most of the shell to sea group claim

I think "if it doesnt support my narrative it must be biased" pretty much sums it up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cml387

What the OP wants is a news source that represents his view.
That's fair enough, we all chose a news source that suits our views whether it be the Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or An Poblacht.

But unbiased? No such thing.

All news sources are biased towards 1)local news 2)Any news with pictures that look good 3)Deaths on a sliding scale depending on the distance from the deathtoll.

Autonomous Cowherd

OP,
I think we have to read around a good bit. It is definitely an issue...the one you raise. It IS very difficult to know the truth about anything.
Personally I find the banal double-speak on Irish news stations to be painful and annoying. It's as if we live in gaga land and are being spoon fed daily opiates by (mainly) chicks who have been picked to push the propaganda at us because their voices have that certain soothing airwave twang. But anyways.
Read the maintsream stuff, like the Guardian, BBC, whatever, but afterwards check out people like John Pilger, Abby Martin, Robert Fisk, (to mention very few), look at blogs, Vice has been mentioned and they have good documentaries, read AlJazeera, RT, etc., and also read the so-called whacky stuff too like SOTT, Vineyard of the Saker and Zero Hedge, etc. etc.
Just read lots, know that everyone has an agenda, including the employers of the classy soft-spoken Irish Mammies doling out our daily dose of this-is-real-life-folks. And maybe some of us should get it together to become citizen journalists ourselves and begin making records and reports on the actual stories on the ground. The equipment is no longer prohibitively expensive and the internet is our publisher

euser1984

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

OP,
I think we have to read around a good bit. It is definitely an issue...the one you raise. It IS very difficult to know the truth about anything.
Personally I find the banal double-speak on Irish news stations to be painful and annoying. It's as if we live in gaga land and are being spoon fed daily opiates by (mainly) chicks who have been picked to push the propaganda at us because their voices have that certain soothing airwave twang. But anyways.
Read the maintsream stuff, like the Guardian, BBC, whatever, but afterwards check out people like John Pilger, Abby Martin, Robert Fisk, (to mention very few), look at blogs, Vice has been mentioned and they have good documentaries, read AlJazeera, RT, etc., and also read the so-called whacky stuff too like SOTT, Vineyard of the Saker and Zero Hedge, etc. etc.
Just read lots, know that everyone has an agenda, including the employers of the classy soft-spoken Irish Mammies doling out our daily dose of this-is-real-life-folks. And maybe some of us should get it together to become citizen journalists ourselves and begin making records and reports on the actual stories on the ground. The equipment is no longer prohibitively expensive and the internet is our publisher

Thanks for that. I think you're one of the only people that has actually "got" what i'm saying...

The only issue now is where do you get the time to do all this?

euser1984

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

OP,
I think we have to read around a good bit. It is definitely an issue...the one you raise. It IS very difficult to know the truth about anything.
Personally I find the banal double-speak on Irish news stations to be painful and annoying. It's as if we live in gaga land and are being spoon fed daily opiates by (mainly) chicks who have been picked to push the propaganda at us because their voices have that certain soothing airwave twang. But anyways.
Read the maintsream stuff, like the Guardian, BBC, whatever, but afterwards check out people like John Pilger, Abby Martin, Robert Fisk, (to mention very few), look at blogs, Vice has been mentioned and they have good documentaries, read AlJazeera, RT, etc., and also read the so-called whacky stuff too like SOTT, Vineyard of the Saker and Zero Hedge, etc. etc.
Just read lots, know that everyone has an agenda, including the employers of the classy soft-spoken Irish Mammies doling out our daily dose of this-is-real-life-folks. And maybe some of us should get it together to become citizen journalists ourselves and begin making records and reports on the actual stories on the ground. The equipment is no longer prohibitively expensive and the internet is our publisher

Can I ask for your opinion on the hospitalized thing I mentioned earlier on in the thread? If you haven't read or can't read back i'll get it for you....

it seems to be doublespeak certainly but is it something else too?