To Chris Lewis.

Matters of should or shouldn't are subjective matters, not objective matters.
Should there be a jury system. That can only be answered by subjective means, not objective means.

Same goes with:
Should the people or the government lead
Should there be as struct a lockdown
Should we protect the market or let it run it's course
Should you regulate industries more, regulate speech more, regulate populations more
Should taxes be raised, lowered, scrutinized more, allowed more ability to be used and trust the system they are in
Should the ABC be private.

The only matter on there that wasn't a subjective matter in your list was about global warming. That isn't a should we do this, or do that, it's what is really going on in the climate.

Here's the point. Being subjective does not automatically mean bias, nor are all subjective answers equal. There still is a right way and a wrong way. Even in subjective matters of giving up your rights for safety, or fighting over-reaching abuse of power under the reason of plague, war, terrorism, or anything else. Or on matters of corruption in the justice system, it's weighed subjectively based on what has happened so far and how to fix issues (when they come up) and protect the integrity of the system from falling apart (when the system is challenged or people try to "fix" it).

There is still a right and a wrong way of doing things. Even when judging subjective matters.

(Continued)

With media bias, "just the facts please" is a good approach to start with. Moving past that goes to interviews and honestly conveying the values and the words of the people being interviewed.

Underneath all of this is the issue of what the media reports on and what is it not reporting on. That bias is more on salesmanship to an audience then it is about seeking out the truth. Bad news sells. Local news that isn't that bad, not so much. Bad news to one population based on their demographic, or successes to that same demographic sells to that section of population.

Want a point to prove it? Every election I've paid attention to has experts and expert polls saying what the people want, the dangers of popular opinion (danger to one set of values or population), and how the majority agrees with them. Then later the tallies come back and every poll and expert is wrong. Around election time the muscle is pressed on how to manipulate people to join or leave a stance. This is the time to witness media manipulation to the point close to trying to brain wash the masses.

Is the media biased. Yes. How do I know? I pay attention at their weakest so moments, when there is a cause or an issue to push, or when there is an election to report on.

To Foxy.

You asked, how do we fix the problem? My answer is that first ask if there's merit behind what's being said, and what's being reported on. If people hold their news to being credible or not, then that will fix a lot of the issues of whether they are objective or not in their reporting. This approach won't weed out a bias entirely, but it will ask whether that bias has merit or whether it harms the news report.

Hi NNS,

Your suggestion of people needing to ask themselves
if there's merit behind what's being reported on is
one I whole-heartedly agree with.

Julian Burnside, QC - wrote an article a few years ago
on the media. Some of the things he pointed out were:
Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity and
such diversity as there is runs along predictable lines.

1) The economics of print and electronic media tends to
drive opinion in the direction of populism. This has
unhappy results now that both major political parties
have, it seems, abandoned their founding principles and
form policies by reference to media coverage generally and
to news polls and focus groups in particular.

2) It's also the case that the internet offers a vast
supply of news and - especially opinion. To dive into
that pool in order to learn something different is to
risk drowning.

3) Just as mainstream traditional media is full of voices
(mainly strident) telling government what to do, so the
blogosphere and social media is full of voices, more
numerous and diverse, and often more strident doing the
same thing.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of mainstream
media and the jungle of the internet need a place where
rational but diverse views can be found on matters of
enduring importance.

I therefore find it wise to use a variety of sources -
and as you
suggest make up my own mind as to the merits of what's
being said.

Another thing that could be done is starting with
the education of journalists. As someone wrote on
the web - many journalists have forgotten that the
job journalists have is to report on the -
Who, What, When, and Where, of a story. Not the Why?

The Why? leads to their own individual opinion being
included in reports.

Interesting bit of news.

Malcolm Turnbull's new book - A bigger Picture
is now available as of today (20/04/2020) for
purchase from bookshops.

It will be interesting how the media reacts to
it. Who will pre-judge without having even read it?

Leigh Sales is interviewing Malcolm Turnbull
this evening on the 7.30 Report on the ABC.
Should also be interesting to see what questions
are asked and what Mr Turnbull has to say. I believe
the time frame has been extended to an hour instead
of the usual half an hour.

Worth watching.