But say, do you look forward to daily reports in your newspaper how on XY street there was no traffic accident yesterday? Or that no criminal escaped from YZ prison last month?
It's perfectly legitimate to focus on the interesting parts. You want to learn about an elephant's anatomy? Read a biology textbook, not journalism.
Thanks for a case study. That's exactly what the press does - describe only the tail and call everyone who objects tail-phobes. No, I'm not going to pay for such baloney. If they find advertisers gullible enough to pay for it - good for them. Otherwise, good riddance.
> It's perfectly legitimate to focus on the interesting parts.
Of course. It's also perfectly legitimate for me not to pay for it if I'm interested in whole picture, not tail hairs. Let the tail hair enthusiasts finance it.
Sure, don't pay for it. I don't pay for Magic: The Gathering cards. But I also don't troll message boards how WotC deserve to die because they neglect XBox games, thus showing their bias towards Collectible Card Games.
If they describe only what they care for, and only in a way they care for, it's the definition of biased. I challenge you to provide a definition of this word that would not be equivalent to this.
> But I also don't troll message boards how WotC deserve to die because they neglect XBox games
I don't care if they survive on their own - but they are whining that unless people start en masse paying for them, they'd die. I say - in that case good riddance, just as you would say if somebody asked you to pay for local MtG tournament because otherwise they can't survive. If they want my money - they have to provide quality content and do decent work. If they want to prostitute themselves to partisan politics and clickbait - ok, that's a way to make a living too, but I won't pay for it.
Oh, and another thing: I don't think any MtG club ever driven anybody to suicide or ruined somebody's life or career. Media does it all the time (Gawker, finally and deservedly resting in peace, pretty much was built for it). For example: https://quillette.com/2019/01/30/the-death-of-a-dreamer/ And then they want my sympathy. How about "no"?
P.S. you don't have to like my arguments or agree with it, but calling me "troll" just because you disagree with me is rude. Just so you know.
Right or wrong, noble intentions or not, it's not an accurate portrayal of America as a whole on the part of the BBC. If CNN ran a front page column every time someone in the UK died of alcohol poisoning, would you consider that unbiased coverage of the UK?
Of course we all have our personal biases that can never be fully eliminated. But if you wanted to summarize the "current state of America" in one web page, statistically speaking some bastard shooting 3 bystanders in a botched robbery in a high crime area of East St. Louis (made up, but similar to stuff I've seen on the front page before) shouldn't even approach making the list.
Here is a report from OFCOM itself about a talk given by Ms White on the subject of diversity and how OFCOM can support a “positive change” agenda. [1]
Here are details of Project Diamond a programme to enforce and monitor Ms White’s diversity agenda across the industry [2]
Also [3] where Ms White speaks about punishing the BBC for not meeting her requested standards.
[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/speeches/2...
[2] http://creativediversitynetwork.com/diamond/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/27/tv-industry-di...
If you can’t see the distinction, I doubt you will find any journalism stooping to your level.
One example would that the BBC now has to have a 50-50 gender split for experts brought onto its flagship Radio 4 Today programme. That was decided to presumably to broaden opinions given to be more inclusive.
Another example would be this speach by Ms White where she clearly states:
"So today we have announced that the BBC will have to agree with Ofcom a new Diversity Code of Practice. This will set out how the BBC will commission programmes that authentically portray the whole UK population." [1]
As to "stooping to my level", I've so far not said anything about whether this process is good or bad or if the ends justify the means. Just that it is going on and you can read about the details if you wish.
[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/speeches/2...
Nowhere above has OFCOM directed the BBC to air different opinions. Regarding the Today programme example: Deliberately featuring a female (rather than male) climate science expert after featuring a male vaccination expert is entirely orthogonal to impartiality.
[EDIT:] I'm not specifically arguing that the BBC has no bias. I'm saying you haven't demonstrated that OFCOM have demanded a bias.
Well, actual verified accounts and statistics for one. BBC loves nothing more than highlighting USA shootings - despite near historic record lows of gun violence and definitely lows of gun ownership to crime ratios.
BBC does this because they want to “prove” how much better they are not being allowed the choice of how to defend yourself. It’s British smugness 101.
Btw... Did you see the school shooting last week where the aggresor was wearing a smash the patriarchy shirt - no you probably did not, and definitely didn’t see it on BBC.
Narrative and Bias. BBC can be trusted at all on firearms anywhere.
Now look at this list of only school shootings in America and tell me again that the BBC is unfairly reporting on too many of them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_...
What percentage have they reported on, anyway? Low single digit?
Your "near historic record lows" are how many orders of magnitude more than in other countries?
You’ll be happy to know there are less school shootings today than the 90s. [0]
As opposed to other countries, where guns are available they are used... shocker! The fact is that where guns are in the USA, our rural areas have violence rates as near European rural rates. We have a lot of metropolitan areas with populations of 250k+ where our crime is, those are areas with illegal guns, that go with the drug, gang, poverty, inequality of social mobility, and gang problems. We have issues in the cities - but it’s not because of guns. That violence committed with guns is falling, despite record gun availability. The CDC found that where we have 10k homicides including all the drug and gang violence per year, we have 500,000 to 3,000,000 successful and legal defensive gun uses. And... to wrap up the “but other countries” argument, I don’t care what other countries to, in the USA we have a fundemental freedom to defend ourselves with the lost effective means of personal protection ever invented, it’s a natural right enumerated as a civil right.
[0] https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-o...
All of those things would make national news if they occurred in the UK.
In the UK you go to jail for defending yourself [0,1,2]. The UK police themselves tell you the only legal tool for self-defense is a rape alarm [3].
If you think it's good the UK government has made the choice for people on how best to defend themselves, that's cool. I understand how if you've grown up with that culture, it's probably difficult to understand the freedom of choice we have in the USA.
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461346/Five-years-i...
[1] https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/11/pensioner-jailed-shooting-bur...
It seems legitimate to report on that considering schools are places that parents send their kids every day and have historically viewed them as safe. Add that most schools are publicly-run institutions and you have an interesting story of children shooting children at government run locations. If that doesn’t seem newsworthy to you, the bias may be in your own interpretation.
And you are also wrong about that. [0] My comment wasn’t about number of school shooting - but narrative. You don’t hear about them unless they fall into a given narrative. You don’t question what you are seeing at all, just happily accept it because it fits your bias.
[0] https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-o...
Even if we just focus on K-12, you could download this [1] data from US Naval Postgraduate School and run a trend line all the way back to 1970.
While your source that has no data at all - that does seem more trust worthy. Not to mention rate vs incidents.
The source I provided is literally only data, with no editorializing. It comes from this source: "The School Shooting Database Project is conducted as part of the Advanced Thinking in Homeland Security (HSx) program at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)."[1] It also has a publicized data set you can examine.[2]
You are not biased at all, but anyone who dares disagree with you must be.
"The (K12SSD) table at right shows that the majority of “school shootings” over the last 48 years occur outside while on school campus. When tied in with non-shooting “school shooting” definitions, such as brandishing, we get a very different picture. By this project’s definitions, if someone on the sidewalk outside the school brandished a gun, that was a “school shooting”. Three percent of “school shootings” in the database involve no shots being fired at all. And if we include single shots (regardless of from where they came, or if they were suicides, or if they were late at night, etc.) those add up to 63% of all incidents."
http://www.gunfacts.info/blog/school-shooting-database-and-p...
I hardly think K12SSD's releases come "with no editorializing".
We could have a long discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in the data set. Should a bullet that hits a school building be counted? Should brandishing count? Should we only count incidents where people die? Does there need to be 4 or more injured? etc.,
The comment about editorializing was in reference to how one source was a news article interpreting a data set (the definition of a narrative) and the other was simply a data set.
Your personal bias, of course.
We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".