r/Glasgow Tools

In an ideal world, neither A nor B would have to be considered and we'd have objective, unbiased journalism and extreme xenophobia wouldn't be a thing.

It's equally sad that you wouldn't doubt popular news outlets having a leaning (to either side). I.e. almost blindly believing whatever your favourite newspaper tells you, because it aligns with your worldview.

In fact, the "paper" you sent me goes ahead and "proves" that a lot of the popular news outlets have a leaning. Which, again, ideally shouldn't happen - reporting *should* be as objective as possible.

Speaking of the "paper" you sent, it reads (at least 21/34 pages in) more like a published opinion than a paper. Sure there are some research methodologies used and attempts to appear neutral are here and there, but it just resounds with the "left good, right bad" mindset. I really can't stomach an "academic" paper with such bias (even if it was reversed). The author goes and labels practically everything that is against *illegal* immigration as "harsh and negative" - including the word "illegal" itself.

So, let's agree that everyone has their biases and said biases affect how things are reported (unfortunately in greater magnitude off late). Some outlets want to play it safe to avoid an outrage mob from either side, which is a pity, but newspapers are businesses and their sales rely on their reputation.

I'm sure those charities are trying to do their best, if not doing amazing work. I don't doubt it, in fact I'm all for it.

It's just that it should be for those who *actually* were legally granted asylum status (as opposed to just being ferried over and expecting to be taken care of, while there are others already in line).

Edit 1: fixed a typo ("idea" was meant to be "ideal")