nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.