The end of mainstream news reporting

[phil752]

The pertinent word there is feature, the bbc will report on those stories they just aren't as high up on the feature list, it's not really much of a chore to find a bbc report on pretty much any subject, but there's only so much time and so much audience. It's not a surprise either to find there's some kind of bias to reporting esp when your audience, your supporters, and your masters are all just as human as yourself. You have to cater to your fans even if you don't have to be a supplicant to advertisers whims.

 

Which way is your bbc news feed orientated?

basic British front page headlines,

http://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/rss.xml?edition=uk

 

Rest of world headlines,

http://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/rss.xml?edition=int

 

Would you rather have fox News?

 

Id rather have public service broadcast system the was balanced in informing the public, that after all pays for it.

[petemcewan]

One problem with social media as a form of news reporting is the following.

With sites such as Twitter and Facebook, people follow and are "friends" with a certain group of people. They are constantly reading comments from the same people and are constantly having their views reinforced. Unlike traditional news finding, where people are introduced to stories and ideas they may not have necessarily found on their own, they are presented with stories that may only be of interest to their immediate social circle.

Edited November 12, 2016 by petemcewan

[El Cid]

One problem with social media as a form of news reporting is the following.

With sites such as Twitter and Facebook, people follow and are "friends" with a certain group of people. They are constantly reading comments from the same people and are constantly having their views reinforced. Unlike traditional news finding, where people are introduced to stories and ideas they may not have necessarily found on their own, they are presented with stories that may only be of interest to their immediate social circle.

 

From what you are saying, you are not on facebook, and you know very little about it?

[ECCOnoob]

From what you are saying, you are not on facebook, and you know very little about it?

 

Actually he is closer to the truth than you think.

 

It has been well researched and evidenced that social media sites such as facebook will track profies, moods, content, branding, trends posted by its users and deliberately target them with bespoke articles, adverts, groups and "suggested" items which match their profile.

 

Its hardly a revolation that someone who has a certain opinion will be attracted to postings and media which has similarities to their own. Join enough groups or click on enough articles and over time someone's whole social media world turns into nothing but a wholly one sided and repeated exposure to a particular stance and viewpoint

 

Such circumstances would inevitiably lead to some people forming a default setting whenever X subject is brought up in the future.

Edited November 12, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[El Cid]

Its hardly a revelation that someone who has a certain opinion will be attracted to postings and media which has similarities to their own.

 

That would also happen with newspapers.

[ECCOnoob]

To a point yes it does.

 

There are of course famously right wing and left wing newspapers. One might also argue that the same goes for Television.

 

However, there is a big difference. There are rules and regulations to newspapers and television. There are (albeit many would dispute them) codes of conducts, standards, evidence and strict controls as to how things can be presented and how balance must be given.

 

As an example, how many times do we see people screaming and whining about the BBC and its leftie bias then next minute people are screaming about it being nothing but a right wing government mouthpiece.

 

Sounds to me like if you are upsetting both sides, you are doing your job of "balancing" perfectly well.

 

Fact is that none of these controls apply to social media. Most of its content is user generated. Its news sources are unconfirmed and unverified. Its content can be wholly minipulated, edited, changed and re-written to suit any agenda the poster or posters wish to fit into.

 

There are whole websites and feeds dedicated to "facts" which are completely unverified and on countless times have been busted for being completely untrue. There are thousands and thousands of videos posted with dramatic titles such as "real footage" or "leaked tape" of some alleged dramatic event which turns out to be a complete hoax. There are youtube channels dedicated to giving away dirty secrets, disturbing footage, leaked phone calls and CCTV, all with wild and dramatic narrative about who/what/how X was covered up - of course none of which is actually verified, reported or proven.

 

Its all too easy. Anyone can say what they are like when they are hiding behind a keyboard. Hey, some of us are even doing it now. Lets be honest here most social media content is opinion. That's really what it is. Its the modern day sewing circle of the gossipy women going on about that bloke down the road and his dodgy trips to the shed late at night. Its the old biddies yacking over the fence about the dirty cow at number 69 with the unwashed nets. Its the flat cappers sat round with their pint of mild telling their wild tales about how they know, because a bloke at the bar told them, that the EU is all a big scam and the Head of Judiciary wears pink lacy undies underneath his robes.

 

I would rather have some trained journalists actually getting the facts and then making my own mind up after reading and watching a range of news.

 

The top trending articles on facebook every day is not news. Even less so when those "trending" articles have been wholly bespoke created for your viewing after sophisticated analytics have tracked, scanned and checked just the type of things you are in to and the sort of things you agree with.

Edited November 12, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[syne]

Id rather have public service broadcast system the was balanced in informing the public, that after all pays for it.

 

Balanced how? Informing you on what? The bbc probably actually puts out more content than you can take in if your not digesting it all, and your not, then how can you say it's not balanced?

[AmberLeaf]

I don't know, however I think we'd all be happier if we woke up to ' Roland Rat ' in the morning. Maybe?

[elgoog44]

I don't think it is the end, I think what happens is that we are now in a period of the generation who do not have time to sit and watch the news, so we take sound bites from social media, and not always factually correct and then end up spouting it as gospel leaving the real news lost in the Chinese whispers of social media.

[Harrystottle]

Brexit happened, Trump happened. Neither had the backing of broadcast media. So they are now getting worried. The proles aren't buying what the BBC and Sky are selling. So expect more stories about lies on the internet and the need for it to be controlled.