Is our country divided forever?

[CityStu]

I agree with this and the quoted post, but i echo chambers and self selecting news are nothing new. Before social media it was the newspapers.

A quick question, the BBC have to be impartial in their coverage of political partys as part of their public funding, do other TV broadcasters have to follow the same impartiality laws?

Social media and newspapers are not alike.

You buy a newspaper knowing its political slant and you read stories with that in mind.

Social media and blogs make it possible to hide that political slant before the user starts to read. If all they read is written by users with one viewpoint (because that is what's fed to them) then it takes a very strong mind to say 'actually I disagree with everything my friends are telling me is true'.

Social media is the equivalent of being force fed whereas newspapers are a buffet (admittedly, a more right wing buffet).

 

[Magicpole]

Syria?

I hear Afghanistan is simply life enhancing at this time of year. Plus, Europe is out now and obviously he will hope they will be treated better as immigrants than those coming here are.

I would imagine.

 

[che_don_john]

I agree with this and the quoted post, but i echo chambers and self selecting news are nothing new. Before social media it was the newspapers.

A quick question, the BBC have to be impartial in their coverage of political partys as part of their public funding, do other TV broadcasters have to follow the same impartiality laws?

I think only Channel 4 do, as they have a public service broadcasting remit.

I find it ludicrous how many media outlets (the usual Dacre/Murdoch suspects) often label the BBC as biased when they themselves are, by definition, biased! The BBC as an organisation is non-partisan and neutral, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people working for it are. Too often, people confuse individual/employee partisanship as a general institutional bias.

The BBC will slip up from time-to-time but at least it strives for neutrality as much as possible, unlike its rivals. Whenever someone/something occupies a middle, neutral position, those on the extremes will inevitably view it as being biased in favour of their opposing view because that is where it sits on the scale relative to themselves.

 

[Machiavelli]

Someone has been at the hyperbole again.

 

[Bozzie]

I think only Channel 4 do, as they have a public service broadcasting remit.

I find it ludicrous how many media outlets (the usual Dacre/Murdoch suspects) often label the BBC as biased when they themselves are, by definition, biased! The BBC as an organisation is non-partisan and neutral, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people working for it are. Too often, people confuse individual/employee partisanship as a general institutional bias.

The BBC will slip up from time-to-time but at least it strives for neutrality as much as possible, unlike its rivals. Whenever someone/something occupies a middle, neutral position, those on the extremes will inevitably view it as being biased in favour of their opposing view because that is where it sits on the scale relative to themselves.

The newspapers would argue that they have no requirement to be impartial. If you choose to read The Sun or The Mail you know what you're going to get and, presumably, that's what you want. Historically people have always gravitated towards like minded people and take comfort and reassurance in reading or hearing views that are compatible with their own.

 

[Damocles]

Or maybe they don't feel the need to get into this with you.

In 3 posts you have said you despise people and called others either a cretin or not too bright.

Seems to me you after an argument. Carry on as I sure someone will oblige.

Yeah I agree with this actually. This seems designed purely to setup an argument.