There are way too many acronyms this election cycle

Yes precisely, too many people conflate non-neutrality with bias. It's perfectly possible to be non-neutral and opinionated while remaining complete rational with zero bias. Bias is when one's opinions or ideologies have a harmful effect on one's reasoning.

Neutrality means calling something without having special interests or thinking of "who stands to benefit from this news" or "if we report this as is with no spin, do we risk losing funding?, If that's the case what would be a better "presentation" of this news so we don't loose the funding? or "Our audience is primarily this demographic, which prefers these opinions, so to maintain viewership or that corporate overhead we have to pedal these opinions. You get my point.

For all intensive purposes neutrality is synonymous with objectivity in this discussion. Neutrality/objectivity is nearly non existent in our political world and the people claiming to be 100% objective are full of shit. We've been all socialized on this planet, every single one of us has been exposed to opinions that have shaped us, so to claim objectivity on any issue is nonsense. There's people on the left like inkandagger, there's social conservatives like myself, there's libertarians, there's people on the right like Goomshill that can articulate & expound his opinions better than anyone on this forum. We all see bias in the MSM but yet so many of you want to label us some sort of conspiracy theorist or low information or brain washed by Trump or whatever when it's the complete opposite.




No it's really not as easy as you think. It's so hard that even brilliant minds that have spent their entire lives on being "objective" in handing down their verdicts as judges can reach the supreme court and find disagreements. Most of us plebs wouldn't dare say that a supreme court judge is not being objective on any given issue but here they are disagreeing when all seemingly coming from life long positions of objectivity.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Mar 19 2017 11:19pm

I never claimed it was easy to be unbiased. I don't think anyone is capable of avoiding bias entirely. All I'm saying is that being opinionated does not inherently make one biased. A newspaper supporting a candidate, for example, does not imply that the newspaper cannot be objective in their reporting. Sometimes support for a candidate is precisely because of their rationality.

What? That's an oxymoron.

Lets say i'm an avid Trump supporter, and everyone else at my news organization for the most part is. In what parallel universe would i publish negative opinion pieces on him while simultaneously praising his opponent who i hate?

You can support a candidate while being fair about their shortcomings.

Neutrality is calling everything 50/50 no matter which side is correct. Being objective is calling it like it is, even if it benefits one side over the other.

An objective media would slam republicans 24/7 on climate change. A neutral media would call it a controversy and report both sides as equal.

I'm a die hard Cavs fan but I'm realistic about how good they and their players are. My opinion does not cause biased judgment.

Lets talk about sex baby

The only difference between PBS, NPR, and more popular outlets is the level of entertainment. Any time I've ever watched a panel on PBS I've seen the same people who appear on Meet the Press or other MSM shows. Whenever people on here criticize CNN they never mention the programming I actually watch, which is the political coverage by Tapper, Blitzer, and Cooper, and CNN has the best political panels by far. You people aren't more enlightened because you like the monotone voices at NPR.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 20 2017 06:52am

Also calling bullshit on this. Name me the last 3 major stories which were broken by PBS, PRI, or NPR.