which is the most unbiased news source?

[pongo]

39 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

There are no unbiased media sources.

Obviously. Because meaning is always subjective and depends on context. Everyone knows that.

But that's not the question here. So then it's about rigorous editorial standards. How sources are checked and verified. Not reporting hearsay. Making a clear distinction between opinion, reporting and advertorial. Etc. And the quality of the people, their educational, depth of knowledge, experience, professional competence etc.

[quilp]

You left out honesty... 

[Lxxx]

7 minutes ago, pongo said:

Obviously. Because meaning is always subjective and depends on context. Everyone knows that.

But that's not the question here. So then it's about rigorous editorial standards. How sources are checked and verified. Not reporting hearsay. Making a clear distinction between opinion, reporting and advertorial. Etc. And the quality of the people, their educational, depth of knowledge, experience, professional competence etc.

Not entirely accurate. I'm sure you could go through the Daily Mail and the Guardian, for example, and find people from very similar backgrounds, levels of experience, knowledge and competence but find two differing slants on the same story, both using verifiable sources and highlighting different data to back up the argument.

On a more general theme of journalism though their seems to be a decline of old school methods and techniques, across the board. Investigative approaches, old fashioned boots on the ground, interviewing, research, collating of hard data seems to have been left behind in favour of working to press releases, resulting in rather generic reporting across multiple media and less focus on using their own findings. Some of it might be cost related, or large groups swallowing up more and more smaller players resulting in fewer genuinely independent outlets. Or special interests of the owning groups meaning certain topics are off limits to genuine investigation.

The only way to hope to get a decent picture of current affairs is to take in widely differing sources of information and draw your own conclusions.

[twinkle]

So no definitive answer as to the "times" bent on the BREXIT issue then!!?.

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Lxxx said:

There are no unbiased media sources. Every outlet is owned by someone.....

The Grauniad is owned by a trust hence unlike the UK right-wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it, there is no owner's agenda skewing the content.

When you think how difficult it is to make money out of newspapers these days you should think hard about why the owners keep the presses running....?

[Lxxx]

11 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The Grauniad is owned by a trust hence unlike the UK right-wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it, there is no owner's agenda skewing the content.

When you think how difficult it is to make money out of newspapers these days you should think hard about why the owners keep the presses running....?

The Guardian was owned by a trust. It was then changed to a Limited Company in 2008 and now has a corporate structure and board members with ties to commerce like any major media company. 

As you rightly point out it's difficult to make money out of newspapers so it is now under the same pressure, like any of it's peers, to generate revenue by a variety of means. HSBC, for example, is it's biggest advertising account.

Nothing is impartial if bottom line is at stake.

[P.K.]

That's right, the Scott TRUST Ltd.

So why do you think the likes of the Barclay brothers keep the Torygraph rolling...?

[quilp]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

That's right, the Scott TRUST Ltd.

So why do you think the likes of the Barclay brothers keep the Torygraph rolling...?

Tell us why... 

[quilp]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

The Grauniad is owned by a trust hence unlike the UK right-wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it, there is no owner's agenda skewing the content. 

That's it! Completely trustworthy and not a sniff of agenda...

Give over... 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

The Guardian was owned by a trust. It was then changed to a Limited Company in 2008 and now has a corporate structure and board members with ties to commerce like any major media company. 

As you rightly point out it's difficult to make money out of newspapers so it is now under the same pressure, like any of it's peers, to generate revenue by a variety of means. HSBC, for example, is it's biggest advertising account.

Nothing is impartial if bottom line is at stake.

Modern legal, accountancy and regulatory advice means that most charitable trusts operate through the medium of a company limited by guarantee, the directors of which are, for charity purposes are the Trustees.

That change doesn’t change the Guardian from charitable trust status, nor make it a commercial media company. The Memo and Articles of the company trust vehicle set out exactly the same terms and trust conditions as the old Scott trust.

[P.K.]

Thank you Mr Wright.

Let's see what the detractors come up with next....

[the stinking enigma]

Are there no adverts in the guardian?

[quilp]

2 hours ago, twinkle said:

So no definitive answer as to the "times" bent on the BREXIT issue then!!?.

Buy the print edition a couple of times a week and see what you think? 

[woody2]

38 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Modern legal, accountancy and regulatory advice means that most charitable trusts operate through the medium of a company limited by guarantee, the directors of which are, for charity purposes are the Trustees.

That change doesn’t change the Guardian from charitable trust status, nor make it a commercial media company. The Memo and Articles of the company trust vehicle set out exactly the same terms and trust conditions as the old Scott trust.

eh?

the trust owns "guardian media group"

[John Wright]

23 minutes ago, woody2 said:

eh?

the trust owns "guardian media group"

Never mind. More polluting hot air from W2