Hacker News Reader

Comment by kzrdude | Hacker News Reader

The BBC kind of does that commitment, doesn't it? As do many other public service channels, like NPR. See also http://ethics.npr.org/

Of course it can be discussed what the political leanings of the outcomes actually are.

View on HN

I listen to KQED on a regular basis. It's a lot of things, but politically neutral can't be reasonably claimed to be among them. Not unless you think sitting square between 70s-type radicals and mainstream centerism is a form of neutrality. I generally agree with their politics, but I find the constant slant somewhat annoying.

To put it another way: it's very possible to interpret fairness and impartiality in creative ways. And some NPR member stations make a habit of this.

The biggest issue I have with NPR is selection bias. They spend a large fraction of the day airing stories of poverty and despair, closely related to hot-button political issues (USA healthcare, etc) that end in a tone of "we stated the facts of the matter, and the facts are that people are suffering." It is obvious that they are imploring the listener toward more liberal viewpoints.

Faithful NPR (specifically my local branch) listener here. I agree with your general point, though I notice it most with immigration related stories. The thing I appreciate about how NPR covers things though is that their commentators are almost never spokespeople/PR reps. They are legit professionals in the field, elected officials, or people who seriously study this subject matter. Of course they still have bias, but not _nearly_ as much as what I hear / see in other media which is "person whose literal/only job is to promote political stance X."

The BBC is pretty biased for UK news and for rest of world their bureaus are thin on the ground.

Pre David Kelly they used to take their commitment more seriously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com