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

euser1984 · 30-05-2016 03:31PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:34PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:35PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:35PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:36PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:37PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:44PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:46PM

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

PARlance · 30-05-2016 03:46PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:46PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:48PM

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 · 30-05-2016 03:49PM

The Guardian and the BBC.

Duggy747 · 30-05-2016 04:06PM

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 · 30-05-2016 04:06PM

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 · 30-05-2016 04:15PM

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 · 30-05-2016 04:15PM

This post has been deleted.

cml387 · 30-05-2016 04:23PM

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 · 30-05-2016 04:43PM

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 · 30-05-2016 04:52PM

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 · 30-05-2016 05:00PM

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?

ohnonotgmail · 30-05-2016 05:05PM

euser1984 wrote: »

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?

It is not a question of opinion. Either the juror was hospitalised or they werent. As for why they hospitalised that is the private information of the juror and the press have no reason to report it.

euser1984 · 30-05-2016 05:08PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is not a question of opinion. Either the juror was hospitalised or they werent. As for why they hospitalised that is the private information of the juror and the press have no reason to report it.

I'm asking what their opinion is on the reason rte would say something like that at the end of a report, and perhaps an insight into the workings behind it. Of course I agree that they have no reason to report it and i've identified that this is one of the problems with the mainstream media (at least in ireland).

Raging_Ninja · 30-05-2016 05:10PM

euser1984 wrote: »

I'm asking what their opinion is on the reason rte would say something like that at the end of a report, and perhaps an insight into the workings behind it. Of course I agree that they have no reason to report it and i've identified that this is one of the problems with the mainstream media (at least in ireland).

Well, being short a juror might mean a delay in a verdict, or why a jury that was once 12 may now be 11.

ohnonotgmail · 30-05-2016 05:10PM

euser1984 wrote: »

I'm asking what their opinion is on the reason rte would say something like that at the end of a report, and perhaps an insight into the workings behind it. Of course I agree that they have no reason to report it and i've identified that this is one of the problems with the mainstream media (at least in ireland).

they said it because it was germane. it held up jury deliberations. you seem to be reaching for some ulterior motive that just isnt there.

Autonomous Cowherd · 30-05-2016 05:42PM

euser1984 wrote: »

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?

About the juror thing it seems perhaps she may simply have been hospitalised for ordinary reasons..it has been a very long running, high profile case, perhaps exhaustion? stress? If you are concerned about it affecting the case, a jury less one can still bring in a verdict, as far as i know. If it is the case in general you are concerned about, the Irish justice systems record on penalising the banking classes for fraud is pretty mellow. A couple of years maybe, a paragraph or two on the judges stern lecture, I would not hold my breath for anything exemplary.

In my opinion, for what its worth, the Irish banksters are small fry anyway....irrelevant boyos who got notions of themselves in a time of general madness....I feel no desire for vengeance on any of them.

K-9 · 30-05-2016 05:46PM

euser1984 wrote: »

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.

The Guardian is quite good but it has a very left and liberal view on things so you'll tend to get that view. The London or English Independent used to be decent but it's just online now and I haven't read it much lately.

The best advice is to question what bias a source will have and be aware of it.

New media is good but aren't subject to the same fact checking as more traditional sources. A Daily Mail reporter was getting loads of videos and stories about the refugee crisis but loads of them were hoaxes or couldn't be backed up.

euser1984 · 30-05-2016 05:58PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they said it because it was germane. it held up jury deliberations. you seem to be reaching for some ulterior motive that just isnt there.

No i'm not. It just gives the impression that the person was hospitalized due to the stress involved in the case. It might not be anything to do with case at all though but it does imply that it does.

it's just an example and doesn't really make much difference to anything. yes, of course the case is going to be stressful for all the jurors.

the point is that it's just an example. in other situations it may have much more serious implications. frc, i don't think they have even started deliberating.

it is relevant to say that one of them could not be there but they should have just said "health reasons" but hospitalized could indicate that one of the bankers friends kneecapped them so they couldn't do it.

Samaris · 30-05-2016 06:14PM

euser1984 wrote: »

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.....

That's an answer to...something, but not the question that was being asked.

Edit: As for whatever this is about a member of the jury being hospitalised, I think if it had been connected to the case (i.e. a kneecapping) that would have been mentioned. That some random bloke goes to hospital because his angina has flared up (to give a more likely wild speculation) isn't really the nation's business.

KingBrian2 · 30-05-2016 06:27PM

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.

Most news outlets are somewhat biased. What you want are the bare facts and the way to do that is getting the Irish radio reporters who are all across the country or alternatively get a foreign perspective. No better way then getting info from a purely objective source. The internet is full of independent broadcasters that focus on local issues. Great for additional stories and they go into detail about the story they are covering.

30-05-2016 06:31PM

euser1984 wrote: »

No i'm not. It just gives the impression that the person was hospitalized due to the stress involved in the case. It might not be anything to do with case at all though but it does imply that it does.
.

I don't know where you get that impression! Can't say it even entered my head.
I wouldn't expect the media to publish private medical issues about a private citizen.

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

Comments