SCMP Bias - What & where is it?

[Cho-man]

Yes, and I am asking for help to spot that using today's headlines for an example.

When most of the news is aggregated by hundreds of blogs and outlets, do we face a situation where a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth?



And where has this sinister form of censorship been addressed in the free media? Is there an example of this in action in recent days. Yes, there was a LOT of omission in the Occupy days, but lets see - lead in water, fungus on hospital sheets, legco reform vote etc... what is the evidence of Dr Evil having taken over the editorial affairs?

Or is this a case of repeat the mantra "SCMP is biased" everything they print is biased, unless we read the same news rewritten on Coconuts?

It doesn't necessarily appear every single day, but you read it enough and it is there.

But fine, keep telling yourself the SCMP is un-biased and impartial reporter of news. I'm sure so long as you believe it, that would make it true. That's right, there is no bias in the SCMP. What are these readers complaining about anyway? The SCMP knows what is best for you. Those who don't like it should suck it up or read something else as their news source. Happy now? (Hint: I'm being sarcastic here) .

[HowardCoombs]

But fine, keep telling yourself the SCMP is un-biased and impartial reporter of news. I'm sure so long as you believe it, that would make it true. That's right, there is no bias in the SCMP. What are these readers complaining about anyway? The SCMP knows what is best for you. Those who don't like it should suck it up or read something else as their news source. Happy now? (Hint: I'm being sarcastic here) .

Nahh, you're just being yourself. Making up stuff that was neither said nor implied.

[Cho-man]

Nahh, you're just being yourself. Making up stuff that was neither said nor implied.

As usual, making up accusations as you go along. How predictable.

Its pretty obvious what Shri was saying. If he believed the SCMP is biased, why question this belief? Hiding behind a veil and afraid of saying what is obvious in the questions: I don't believe that the SCMP is biased. At least have the honesty to say that out loud.

[shri]

But fine, keep telling yourself the SCMP is un-biased and impartial reporter of news. I'm sure so long as you believe it, that would make it true. That's right, there is no bias in the SCMP. What are these readers complaining about anyway? The SCMP knows what is best for you. Those who don't like it should suck it up or read something else as their news source.

Again, this is repeated enough times everywhere on these forums and many other places.

But, where is this bias in the main stories that have been covered over the last few weeks?

Are there some major omissions? Some major quotes which if omitted would make the story biased?

Your sarcasm as thinly veiled as it is, is exactly the thing that I am trying to either prove or disprove with your help.

In my case, I'm on NYT, Bloomberg, SCMP, a couple of UK news papers, BBC and even the HKFP and HT on a very regular basis (they show up on my aggregator) and it is all becoming a blur, I rarely see anything obvious on any of these sources which make me go ... "hey thats new, that point they made makes me think that the news is biased."

I rarely pay any attention to the opinion columns in most of these newspapers with the exception of some obvious ones like Jake in the SCMP and a couple of NYT bloggers, primarily because these columns are fact and data driven and rarely emotional responses.

[shri]

I don't believe that the SCMP is biased.

Ok, I will say it. I have a hard time finding bias in the SCMP's news.

Happy?

But I am open enough to let those who read into this a lot more than I do (I speed read and for whatever reason, I prefer numbers / data and quotes while reading the news).

So, where is the SCMP showing its bias? What is all this fuss about?

Even one example - a good one - would make me happy that I am not being delusional and my mind has not been successfully hacked by the mainland bio-cyber-brigades.

[er2]

Ok, I will say it. I have a hard time finding bias in the SCMP's news.

Happy?

But I am open enough to let those who read into this a lot more than I do (I speed read and for whatever reason, I prefer numbers / data and quotes while reading the news).

So, where is the SCMP showing its bias? What is all this fuss about?

Even one example - a good one - would make me happy that I am not being delusional and my mind has not been successfully hacked by the mainland bio-cyber-brigades.

I don't think it is that simple. By your standard, I doubt I could proof that Fox News is biased.

First, news - as in facts - can't be biased per se, it is either true or not true, and bias manifests itself through deciding what makes the paper and what doesn't. And I agree that the SCMPs China coverage is still as good as it gets.
Bias in opinions is easier spotted, simply because the reader can follow the way the author arrives at his conclusion. And by that standard, China Daily (in point of Alex Lo's ridiculous 'My Take' column) is present and an adequate opposite is not. Given the choice of opinions they publish, I simply doubt that the decisions of what goes into the paper and what doesn't is impartial.

Obviously, same goes for HKFP. I can't accuse them of distorting reality - but they do pick their Hong Kong topics with a focus on Police impartiality, government ineptitude and Liaison Bureau meddling. Just as partisan (but a bit closer to what the press should do, imho).

[shri]

Actually glad you mentioned fox as a example. I find it easier to find bias there than pretty much any other outlet other than CNN.

Fox bias is obvious due to their omission of key facts, background info and lack of any opposing views to their editorial views. Can the same be said for the SCMP?

[er2]

Obviously the SCMP is not anywhere close as bad as Fox. But in the past electoral reform discussion, I think any self-respecting newspaper should have come to the conclusion that an election mechanism that does not guarantee that a candidate supported by 60% of the electorate can make it onto the ballot _may_ still be an improvement, but may never be called universal suffrage. Instead, they painted the whole debate as a discussion over nuances. That is bias in my book.

[Cho-man]

Ok, I will say it. I have a hard time finding bias in the SCMP's news.

Happy?

But I am open enough to let those who read into this a lot more than I do (I speed read and for whatever reason, I prefer numbers / data and quotes while reading the news).

So, where is the SCMP showing its bias? What is all this fuss about?

Even one example - a good one - would make me happy that I am not being delusional and my mind has not been successfully hacked by the mainland bio-cyber-brigades.

Did you actually bothered to watch that Al Jazeera report on the SCMP? Pretty obvious and specific examples cited there of bias.

[Morrison]

I don't know whether or not SCMP is biased in their reporting as I am biased and have stopped reading SCMP


Sent from my iPhone using GeoClicks