I tend to trust the public service broadcasters above any who are privately owned. There is though some privately owned media whose thoughtful comment is always worth considering. Then there are some whose whole approach is to reinforced prejudice.

There are no implications that other posters aren't capable of rational thought, and I have never suggested otherwise. I trust everyone is capable. Whether they always do think rationally is another matter.

Doubt is caused when someone posts a link to an article from an unapologetically biased contributor who is being allowed to occupy column inches in a national newspaper.

There's a story today that Migrants at Marston are complaining that Home Office contractors have been trying to sell them drugs.

As one Albanian put it "It's disgusting, that's our job"

Did you smash her?

There's a story today that Migrants at Marston are complaining that Home Office contractors have been trying to sell them drugs.

As one Albanian put it "It's disgusting, that's our job"

Having named the one I particularly find offensive, is it really necessary to list all the broadcasters/publications I might use from from time to time? They aren't all British!

Having given my general approach a rational response would be that is sufficient to answer the question.

If you can find me anyone in media that isn't intentionally or unintentionally biased, well, I'll spare you the trouble. Not a thing. They don't exist. Even if it was possible to be perfectly and provably impartial you'd still get the same 'biased' flak from all sides regardless.

There's less and more bias, not unbiased and biased. Does the BBC even claim to be unbiased? Pretty sure they aim for impartiality and balance and don't claim to be completely impartial. Better than a lot of media outlets – at least they have some sort of checks and can be held to account, even if it doesn't always work as it should