h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You have to make sure to differenciate these two (facts and what you make of them).

Most news media are (more or less) trustworthy as to the "facts" (unless they talk about homosexual cows being abducted by a mob of rampaging red-coloured Marsians from Venus ). However, as has been suggested before, even the "facts" are subject to, let's say, creative forces (read the thread about science...). But when you hear on the news that the MIR space station crashed into the Pacific without destroying half of the Southern Hemisphere, you can believe these news.

As soon as the facts are interpreted as *meaning something*, you migh just as well turn of the TV (or radio, or put down the papers). Such interpretations do not tell you anything about the facts, they only tell you something about the person who wrote the interpretation.

The problem that arises here is that unfortunately most of the news media (at least the ones I usually have access to) get thoroughly confused between facts and interpretation. That is, it seems like they do not know that there even *is* a difference between these: Interpretations of facts appearing as headlines, etc.

And to make it even worse: in those media who seem to be most neutral ("factual"?) it is hardest to tell whether they are giving facts or their opinion of these facts. So you end up spending most of your time trying to figure out which of these two you were getting on the news.

That's why it is not such a bad idea to compare several different news media - and to know where each one has its own private bias...

Yelbakk

I think Yelbakk has hit the nail on the head here.

There is a great deal of interpretation and spin in most news media and it all appears to be used to further some aim, if only increased viewing or circulation figures.

Unlike the real Guide (where there is much that is apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate), there is usually a thread of truth through a particular news report. However the speculative element of reporting and political bias can sometimes be so insidious that it passes unnoticed. This can also generate further "news" items on public reactions.

Perhaps a good example was the all too recent reporting regarding the UK's sex offenders register. The media circus that ensued did a lot of harm to completely innocent parties and did nothing to serve the interests of the "concerned members of the public".

It sometimes seems that TV and paper news journalists believe they have a right to portray a story in anyway that they choose.

Another example was the indigation that accompanied the reporting of BP Amoco's profits (£10 billion as I recall). This reporting was made without any reference to their overall sales (in excess of £100 billion) or the level of investment made that year (another meaningless number in the billions) or the number of employees (well over 100,000). This may not be the most environmentally friendly basis for a business but a return on sales of 10% is only about average, even poor by comparison to some industries. In this example the reports presented the data out of context and were therefore misleading.

A final example is the recurrent reporting related to the Kyoto Agreement on Climate Change (or whatever it was called). So called "environmentalists" have lobbied successfully for years highlighting the "damage" being caused by man on his own habitat.

There are a whole raft of issues raised by this lobby including the depletion of natural resources, globalisation of trade, bio-diversity and third world debt as well as climate change. All of which are facets of an ethical viewpoint called "sustainable development", which means lets do things in a way "today", that means we will be able to keep on doing them "tomorrow".

Instead of reporting this issue fairly and checking that the data presented to the press was accurate (it's called "peer review" and is standard practice in scientific circles) the press start by reporting the direst of scenarios. This in turn fires public opinion and now in the UK we are stuck with the most ill-conceived piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament, the Climate Change Levy.

However to get back to the point, these concerns should not be used illegitimately to censor the press and broadcasters. They really need to sort themselves out before they are hit by the force of real legislation.

Some suggestions...

It is often the case in law that past convictions are not presented to the jury in a trial to avoid the "well he must be guilty because he's done it before" verdict.

It is also often the case in law that areas of an accused's life outside of case under discussion will not be allowed ("Objection - Sustained!").

Finally lay opinions are not permissible evidence in court. Expert opinion is allowed but both sides of an argument are given equal chance to air their view.

Oh well, time to get off the soap box now. Sorry I dodged about a bit and thanks for reading this far.

Madent

There is the old joke of a sports competition. Two finalists. Our runner comes in last. The media say: Our runner came in second best, while the man running for that other country was alomost last...

Language is deceptive - that should be borne in mind, as well.

Speaking of which, has anyone in the UK noticed the tendency for laws passed or government initiatives to be described as "tough new measures". These could also be described as "strict new measures". Both mean the same thing but the first suggests a macho-stance taking a no-nonsense stand against a problem, the second suggests an officious and bureaucratic piece of authoritarianism. With the change of a single word, the percieved reason for the application of a law can be altered.

Sadly, this language manipulation leads some of the news media to be unable to distinguish between two totally different words. For example, 'discuss' and 'promote' regarding Section 28.