Would it be possible to set up an honest news service that tells it like it is?

What makes you think that the major news services are not honest?

@marinelife I have eyes and ears.

They say things like “The protests turned violent” conveniently forgetting to add “When the police started smashing people heads in for sitting there in peace”

Try Vice News – they’re not exactly the perfect example of objectivity but they don’t BS you much either. As for your question about setting up a transparent news channel, start a blog and you tell us. Being objective is no small task. We all tend to be biased no matter what we are talking about. I do get where you are coming from with this though, and I would be more than happy to have a truly BS-FREE news source. Good luck, and keep us posted!

Who’s “like it is” ? I There’s no such thing as only one.

There’s no perception that does not contain an act of interpretation. Even (especially?) deciding what counts as “news” is an act of interpretation.

Everybody has a point of view and few news people (or anyone else) can avoid voicing theirs.

No.

Yes. But the business model would have to not be about maximizing profits. That means it probably would have to be fully owned by a single person (or a small group of people) with a lot of money.

@marinelife

“When the police started smashing people heads in for sitting there in peace” It’s not unbiased news your looking for but rather your own interpretation of the news.

@glacial I don’t think that idea would work out the way you think unless this single person owner(s) has absolutely no political leanings one way or the other or another. Who would that be?

Edit: ”with a lot of money” already suspicious of their motivations

NO such thing as honest news. The definition of reporting – and for that matter, the selection of what stories to cover – is biased from the start. You can’t cover EVERYTHING so right off the bat, the stories that are selected for coverage are subject to someone’s opinion.

There are already honest news organisations out there who employ reporters with integrity who risk their lives to ‘tell it as it is’. I wouldn’t want anyone to translate what they want to tell us.

I know what you are asking. I wish there were a real unbiased, and reliable source.of information, a sort of up to the minute clearinghouse of facts on “what really matters”. I was wishing the same thing back during the presidential election and so I am interested if anyone comes up with a good source for you here.

Possible but not profitable. Ideal but lacks intrigue.

In theory yes- it’s possible. But I could imagine that it wouldn’t be very popular with the majority of it’s intended audience.

News is largely just the stuff unusual enough to not have a bearing on your life. For the bigger trends and stuff, read academic journals.

Reporters are just like all other humans – we all see events through our own personal lens of our experiences and values, which differ from person to person. This means one set of details will be the “important” ones for me, and a different set will be “important” for you. Let me know when you take the human element out of this equation, and I’ll let you know when an unbiased news network is established.

In the US, we can’t even get honest reports from the White House, regardless of who’s in power, so I don’t think it’s even possible.

@KNOWITALL True, but you know… we used to expect more honesty from our news services than from politicians. That was sort of the point of having news services. Reporters are supposed to have a code of ethics. I think when the model started moving away from having reporters report the news to having newscasters (i.e. models who could read) report the news, we lost that sense of responsibility for what was being reported.

Contrary to all the jaded naysayers here, I think we could regain what was lost – it wasn’t all that long ago. We just need people with integrity to start leading the news industry. It can happen. But not if we all sit on our hands while crying bitter tears about how much everyone sucks and how there are no honest people left in the world. That is nonsense.

@glacial You’re right, that was one of the main points in my journalism class in school. Factual and unbiased, and it is possible, but not probable, not anymore. Integrity isn’t always easy to find anymore.

@KNOWITALL I have it. You have it. Lots of people here on Fluther have it. I don’t think we’ve had a decline in integrity. I think we’ve just been rewarding the people who don’t have it, and need to start expecting and rewarding it in others. If we redefine success in terms of things like integrity, instead of things like money, we can change the way things are done. But beginning every conversation with “There are no good people anymore” sabotages that goal. Why would we want to do that to ourselves?

Good people do bad things.

I do have interigty, but I’m not sure you do. That is the essential problem, people say they have it, and there’s no way to prove they do have it unless you look to their past record.

Politicians count on the fact that a majority of voters have no interest in what they voted for or against ten years ago. Even Obama has broken his word a few times, and he’s our President, rewarded with power, prestige and money. Only old Ross Perot said he’d do it for free and he was laughed out the door.

So how are you going to change the world? Do you think either liberals or republicans will agree that monetary rewards are NOT the definition of success?

@glacial I totally agree. There are more potential Edward R. Murrows in the world. It is not impossible. We need to stop using news as entertainment. We need to demand integirty and stop being so cynical.

There is no repercussion for lying or twisting the facts so there you go.

@KNOWITALL

Sure you could set one up.
But it would not stay that way.
Sooner or later you will start twisting the news to appeal to the masses in the race for viewers, ratings, subscribers or readers (which translates to money), as well as to appeal to advertisers (money).

If we were to get a third political party in the US, it would sooner or later probably sooner be co-opted by one of the other original two and it would be marching to their drumbeat. So it would be killed off more or less. Just like any supposedly non biased news channel start up. Hell, it would be like a matter of national security to stop it before it showed us too much.

There is no such thing as “non-biased.” Journalistic objectivity strives for balance and sharing relevant viewpoints, but it can’t possibly be non-biased. Meanwhile, the only drumbeat to march to in U.S. politics is the Republikan/Tea Party one. The Democrats don’t even have a coherent ideology to beat a drum to (though they come pretty close to “conservative”).

I just can’t stand it when Chris Mathews starts spitting on himself. Or is that drool, but i just wish it would stop.