Current affairs

[Sammeth.]

That must of been one mighty fine prediction considering I hardly ever post in Feedback?. The opinion regarding these newspapers is whether or not someone likes that newspaper, my opinion on the Guardian for example is that it is just full of politically correct jobs in government being advertised in that newspaper, and my opinion on the Sun is that it shows far too much skin on page three. We all have our different tastes and they should all be accomedated for, afterall it doesn't cost anything. You think the Sun is rubbish as do I in most cases, some will like it and its the same with every news source.

As for the issue I get it now, I was confused to whether he was implying a ban on users using certain news sources was being proposed, something which i'm totally against. As for the Guardian being mentioned over the Sun newspaper by the thread poster, my point still directs to that, that the Guardian is biased just as the Sun newspaper is and neither should have priority over eachother.

As I see what he means now, then i'm against as I think all of these newspapers all aim at a different group as Jordy said, the Sun aims for entertainment and a less political slant while papers such as the Daily Mail and Telegraph aim for a political slant.

Was a pretty good prediction. As soon as the guardian is mentioned I expected you not to be far along behind it. :8

[-:Undertaker:-]

Was a pretty good prediction. As soon as the guardian is mentioned I expected you not to be far along behind it. :8

I'm always behind you, you know that. :8

[N!ck]

It's not about the class of the reader (although their intellectual ability is important), it's about whether certain sources are more likely to make things up or twist stories more than others. That's why I don't bother with things like The Sun.

Every source is biased (yes, some much more than others) and the aim of every newspaper is to make money. They're a business, simple as.

[Mentor]

It's not about the class of the reader (although their intellectual ability is important), it's about whether certain sources are more likely to make things up or twist stories more than others. That's why I don't bother with things like The Sun.

Every source is biased (yes, some much more than others) and the aim of every newspaper is to make money. They're a business, simple as.

Reuters unlike the papers is a news source, it's business depends on offering reliable unbias news as soon as its in, rather than purely selling newspapers or getting people to watch.

So i would say Reuters is about as bias free as is really ever possible, which is a big leap infront of most of the media "/

[nvrspk4]

I categorically disagree with the point made in this thread. To suggest to users what they should read is, in my opinion, doing the very thing you seek to avoid. You're imposing your own views on the reader. You want them to view it unbiasedly but perhaps they want some level of commentary? I, for one, enjoy reading commentaries with opinions as well because I have the knowledge on the subject and am able to root out subjective claims and objective claims. I can agree with them, argue with them, or do either with qualifications.

Beyond that, every story has some amount of bias. But the world is about the exchange of ideas and I'm a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas where you don't eliminate bad ideas by restricting them but instead through counterspeech where you argue with them (I'm also a debater).

It could be argued that by implying that you should buy into my marketplace of beliefs philosophy, I am forcing you to go along with my beliefs. But rather allow all viewpoints than only some, or at least that's how I look at it.

I think you've made the common mistake that the working-class reads The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Sport (And other typical tabloids), the Middle Class reads the Daily Mail and the 'Upper' class reads the Daily Telegraph?

Dude you're the only one stereotyping by thinking it's snobby. The Sun aims it's self at people who don't wish to read into much depth and enjoy a big range of rumours and entertainment news, if you want to associate that with the working class then go ahead but it seems like you're the only person stereotyping in this thread (Unless I've got the complete wrong end of the stick ).

I'd disagree, I think the point he was going for wasn't anything to do with class, I think he was referring to the idea of classing your news sources as valid and others as utter rubbish.

[Catzsy]

I categorically disagree with the point made in this thread. To suggest to users what they should read is, in my opinion, doing the very thing you seek to avoid. You're imposing your own views on the reader. You want them to view it unbiasedly but perhaps they want some level of commentary? I, for one, enjoy reading commentaries with opinions as well because I have the knowledge on the subject and am able to root out subjective claims and objective claims. I can agree with them, argue with them, or do either with qualifications.

Beyond that, every story has some amount of bias. But the world is about the exchange of ideas and I'm a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas where you don't eliminate bad ideas by restricting them but instead through counterspeech where you argue with them (I'm also a debater).

It could be argued that by implying that you should buy into my marketplace of beliefs philosophy, I am forcing you to go along with my beliefs. But rather allow all viewpoints than only some, or at least that's how I look at it.



I'd disagree, I think the point he was going for wasn't anything to do with class, I think he was referring to the idea of classing your news sources as valid and others as utter rubbish.

Totally agreed and if it happened where would it end. Banning books that perhaps are not 'intellectually challenging' or 'Newsnight' replacing 'Eastenders' or 'Big Brother'. The forum is tolerant of all opinions, likes and dislikes at the moment within the rules and that's how it should be, I feel. Doesn't mean anybody has to agree with what those particular tabloids say but they should have the right to quote it.

[FlyingJesus]

I categorically disagree with the point made in this thread. To suggest to users what they should read is, in my opinion, doing the very thing you seek to avoid. You're imposing your own views on the reader. You want them to view it unbiasedly but perhaps they want some level of commentary? I, for one, enjoy reading commentaries with opinions as well because I have the knowledge on the subject and am able to root out subjective claims and objective claims. I can agree with them, argue with them, or do either with qualifications.

I agree with this part tbh, giving only an unbias view doesn't challenge anyone's opinions and it's far better to see a range of different viewpoints so you can take all ideas into account and decide what you believe from that

(I'm also a mass debater).

Rank

[Mrs.McCall]

I said it was snobby because people said that The Sun was somehow inferior News because it's a tabloid. The Guardian etc may just word things better but that is no reason for it not the be a good enough source.

Plus it is often that tabloids get the exclusives too.

[Mentor]

Read one news source, you get bias. Read 20 different news sources, there bias's will generally cancel out and you'll be left with a bigger overall understanding of the issue.

I'm against censorship in any form, banning a news source is just that.

Mrs.McCall : Tabloid's are inferior to proper news if your after news. If your after page 3 and celeb gossip on the other hand, the tabloid's have your back :p Never seen a "news" story in a tabloid that wasn't on Reuters first.

[nvrspk4]

Read one news source, you get bias. Read 20 different news sources, there bias's will generally cancel out and you'll be left with a bigger overall understanding of the issue.

I'm against censorship in any form, banning a news source is just that.

Mrs.McCall : Tabloid's are inferior to proper news if your after news. If your after page 3 and celeb gossip on the other hand, the tabloid's have your back :p Never seen a "news" story in a tabloid that wasn't on Reuters first.

A point very well made