I find it mildly ironic that you link to a clip from the PBS NewsHour while, from my reading, you also imply that objective reporting or investigative reporting don't exist or are dwindling. There are clearly some sources left that are worth their salt.

In the US, I've found most PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective, and the various NPR podcasts sometimes chart into investigative territory but there are other sources I rely on for this (e.g. ProPublica) which I don't expect to be just objective.

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant about quality investigative journalism, so forgive me if I misread. I generally agree with your comment.

> PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective

For example, listen for ", without providing evidence" in NPR broadcasts. Notice how selectively it is used.

I consider Media Bias/Fact Check fairly objective and they rate NPR as having left-center bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check:

> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4]

I doubt that we can achieve absolute objectivity, that's why I wrote that I consider it fairly objective, not that it is. That said I don't see a reason why should Columbia Journalism Review or Poynter Institute be any better arbiters of what is correct way to measure bias. (Especially because both are competition.)

Also Poynter Institute has record of "weaknesses in the methodology".[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute

Having a bias doesn't in itself imply lack of objectivity, in relation to what we call 'facts' and 'truth'. It would seem somewhat of a coincidence if 'center' (politically) is right where that lies.

Not that I'm saying that 'reality has a liberal bias', as some would. I personally think it has a left bias, but I'm not nearly certain enough of my opinions to make that claim!

NPR isn't explicitly biased, but it does lean left. A recent example:

> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important

> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...

14 minutes later

> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic

> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.

"Unbiased" != "Factual".

"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?

That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.

Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.

It's not. You can reproduce information in an unbiased manner, but being factual involves fact-checking, which rarely yields a neutral result.

What's the more 'factual' language about the coronavirus pandemic in this case? It has to be one or the other, that's what unbiased means.

You investigate specific claims. For example, take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu". You could report on people making this claim, and state that others disagree. That can be considered an example of unbiased reporting, but it's nevertheless problematic as it may leave a reader with the impression that all reported-on claims are equally valid.

Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.

edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611963

> take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu"

That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.

To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.

Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.

They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.

Not everything can be fact checked in the first place and if it can, who fact checks the fact checkers? There are numerous examples of fact checking websites being factually wrong.

I don't think that's fair. The first article explains the WHO position, it does not endorse it.

Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.

In the context of left-wing political activity, just:

> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic

In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:

> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.

If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.

A campaign rally is not the same thing as a grassroots political protest by far. It's an organised event that an organiser explicitly invites people to, which primarily serves party politics rather than any particular political issue.

That still doesn't change the very obviously biased framing of the information. You can objectively describe one as more important, or more justified if you will, but manipulating the reader by speaking to his subconciousness like they did is not what should be expected from serious journalism.

I disagree - stating the different situations in different ways is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Can you find me some "serious journalism", ever, which operated in the way you describe?

COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.

It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.

And yet, the virus is still the same virus, so why is it okay to describe it differently in each piece?

> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose.

What is the political orientation of a "mass gathering" (rally/protest/etc) if not its purpose? Seriously.

So?

>> COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.

> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.

How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?

Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?

Sure it does, when opposition to mask wearing, social distancing, and other such precautions are part of that political orientation.

(Plus, Trump's rally was indoors; protests are outdoors. We've got quite a bit of data now indicating outdoor transmission is less likely.)

I am not about to jump into a debate about which of the two is "worse", because no matter the outcome it is absolutely disingenious to frame COVID-19 as "deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country" in one context and plain "coronavirus pandemic" in the other. It is the same virus. If you don't see the bias in that then consider the possibility that you share it.

It's not really inconsistent to believe fighting against racial injustice is more important than the reelection of a specific president?

Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.

> neutral reporting of facts.

I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.

You're right, determining what's newsworthy is a biased process in and of itself. But that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, neutrality is still something we should constantly aim for, even if it's a moving target.

For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.

Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.

> What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"?

I don't think better ownership changes anything. The Guardian is owned by a trust, yet falsely reported Mark Duggan was unarmed in a front page headline (if you're unaware, this was false and the Gruan had to retract the claim after a PCC ruling).

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The biggest German left-wing newspaper (taz) is owned by a cooperative. If anything, I find it more annoyingly partisan than other newspapers. It's a hard problem.

The problem isn't bias/partisanship. You can't have any one source be truly unbiased and if you're aware of the politics behind any given source you can neutralise it and temper it with multiple sources from opposite camps.

The problem is that we're not being delivered news-as-information, we're sold news-as-entertainment.

In some parts of tech people treat politics as a team sport, so criticism of their 'team' (even pointing out mistakes acknowledged by the publications) is considered to be punishable.

Indeed. The Guardian Trust has also ruled in editorial complaints that factual inaccuracies in the opinion section are fine, which seems to be to be incredibly irresponsible.

IMO we need some kind of data driven media/data driven reporting/data driven newspaper type thing.

Then we can have reporting/debate/conversation on the meaning of the data but without the filters we use to have in place all reporting has essentially become meaningless, untrustworthy, opinion pieces.