Does unbiased news exist?

[ThisIsMe]

The OP wants us to recommend any impartial news sources.

I cannot.

But I thought that the OP might like to know what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said when she spoke to a Senate panel:

"You may not agree with [Al Jazeera English television], but you feel you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads."

*****

And this from one Dave Marash: "I think that just as ten years ago CNN was the role model, and thirty years ago it was the BBC, today [Al Jazeera English television] is the model of television news coverage."


Source for both quotations: The May - June, 2011, print edition of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Actually, I've also heard, in the past, others talking about Al Jazeera as being a generally unvarnished news source. Anyone else agree?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The OP wants us to recommend any impartial news sources.

I cannot.

But I thought that the OP might like to know what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said when she spoke to a Senate panel:

"You may not agree with [Al Jazeera English television], but you feel you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads."

*****

And this from one Dave Marash: "I think that just as ten years ago CNN was the role model, and thirty years ago it was the BBC, today [Al Jazeera English television] is the model of television news coverage."


Source for both quotations: The May - June, 2011, print edition of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Actually, I've also heard, in the past, others talking about Al Jazeera as being a generally unvarnished news source. Anyone else agree?

They're OK, I guess. I'd put them all together and filter out what can be known to be false.

Sad, but that's how it has to be.

RT, Al-Jazeera, Liveleak, C-SPAN, CBS

I did a study on the news a while back, CBS was one of the least-biased.


Remember that the AP is who claimed Assad gassed his own citizens, when in reality a Russian bomb hit a rebel chemical weapon stockpile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers on this forum routinely accuse liberals of getting all their news from biased sources,

but when you ask those same people where THEY get their implicitly unbiased news,

alas, no answers.

 

[yiostheoy]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

Try PBS -- The News Hour.

BBC is not bad either.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Press swings from protecting Bill Clinton to attacking Bush, to protecting Obama to attacking Trump........there seems to be a clear pattern of left wing bias.
Americans get Skewed News.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Press swings from protecting Bill Clinton to attacking Bush, to protecting Obama to attacking Trump........there seems to be a clear pattern of left wing bias.
Americans get Skewed News.

So where do you get your 'unbiased' news from? Gateway Pundit? lolol

 

[bripat9643]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

You seem very concerned.

Listen here, grasshopper. Find a source that has standards for journalism. They are marked by powerful editorial boards and requirements for accuracy and honesty.

When they make mistakes, they print or provide retractions. When they have a reporter who doesn't meet their standards, they shitcan the reporter.

Now, run along and find something else to be concerned about which feeds the narrative of the current shitbag in the WH.

That would rule out the NYT and WAPO. So who did you have in mind?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

You seem very concerned.

Listen here, grasshopper. Find a source that has standards for journalism. They are marked by powerful editorial boards and requirements for accuracy and honesty.

When they make mistakes, they print or provide retractions. When they have a reporter who doesn't meet their standards, they shitcan the reporter.

Now, run along and find something else to be concerned about which feeds the narrative of the current shitbag in the WH.

That would rule out the NYT and WAPO. So who did you have in mind?

Derp. Derp.

 

[Coyote]

Every thing has a bias...but there is a difference between bias and credibility.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Every thing has a bias...but there is a difference between bias and credibility.

Correct, but what I'm looking for is reporting that reports all the news, good or bad, for both sides. Credible reporting that skews the stories in a particular direction is not credible to me, it's misleading. I want someone who will report facts on all sides. If a the right messes up, then I want to know that l, and if the left messes up, the same applies.

I suppose that is asking too much though. Just doesn't seem like it will happen. This begs the question, what happened to people? Wasn't there a time in our history where people were honest, and trustworthy? When did we become what we are today?

 

[Coyote]

Every thing has a bias...but there is a difference between bias and credibility.

Correct, but what I'm looking for is reporting that reports all the news, good or bad, for both sides. Credible reporting that skews the stories in a particular direction is not credible to me, it's misleading. I want someone who will report facts on all sides. If a the right messes up, then I want to know that l, and if the left messes up, the same applies.

I suppose that is asking too much though. Just doesn't seem like it will happen. This begs the question, what happened to people? Wasn't there a time in our history where people were honest, and trustworthy? When did we become what we are today?

I think there is credible reporting that goes on. The problem these days is that there are so many "news" sources that:
we can choose to exist in echo chambers that only serve us what we LIKE to hear and exclude other views
there is no standard set of ethics that applies anymore - for example, mainstream journalism can be held accountable. Bloggers and so called "independent" sites not so much
Anyone can claim to be a journalist
We largely seem to lack the tools for or desire to critically think when we read the news

You can't get rid of bias, but you can read things and be aware that bias exists. There are also certain things that imo raise "red flags". One is the use of inflammatory language in a "news" article, the other is not providing respectable sources - for example everything sources to unnamed "insiders" and other vague references, another is demonizing a person or group.

Honestly though - journalism wasn't always unbiased anyway - that is a relatively new thing - remember the term "yellow journalism"? It's up to US READERS to keep them honest and accountable.

I'll probably get slammed for this but I like NPR - I get to hear all sides, and all sides get treated with respect. There is a depth to complex issues being covered and I hear about what goes on around the world and how the world views the US.

 

[flacaltenn]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

There's no fixing this. Short of the desperate measures that Obama is trying to sell over in Europe about govt intervention and CONTROLLING it.

So -- what I've ALWAYS done is not pay attention to "sound bite" news. I subscribe to 2 or 3 "journal form" magazines that represent a wide spectrum. For instance at ONE time -- I had "the Nation", Reason Mag, and National Review.. Covered all the bases. Instead of 1.5 minutes of barely qualified talking heads opining about the rush for state legislation to IMPLEMENT marijuana reform. You get 4 or 5 pages of IN-DEPTH analysis.

It's a real eye opener. I'm prepped with ideas and solutions that NOBODY else has heard of getting their news and analysis from TV or partisan websites. I LOOK like a fucking genius --- All for the low low price of about $50/year. The mix of journals has rotated thru the years. I'm back to original 3 with the exception of getting Mother Jones instead of theNation. Since Joan Walsh went there recently, it's unwelcome in my household because my wife went to HS with her and can't really relive the agony of knowing her. And Rachael Maddow once HAD a CONSIDERABLE brain and the ability to do critical thinking. Was one of favorite analysts at The Nation. Until she joined the brainless zombie movement with Mika/Joe and the others at MSNBC..

Seriously -- it's the ONLY way to figure out what's the story. And it's no more of time investment even if you GET a couple months behind reading 3 journals a month.

 

[Coyote]

There's no fixing this. Short of the desperate measures that Obama is trying to sell over in Europe about govt intervention and CONTROLLING it.

What measures?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The ones I like listening to right now are wilkow on the patriot channel. He seems to dish everything up through the filter of the constitution, which is an important thing in my eyes.

I also like armstrong Williams on urban view (or is it the progressive channel). To me, he seems about as straight down the middle on most issues and doesn't seem to lean too far to either political affiliation, at least from the times I have listened to him.

Those two are about the only ones I even come close to trusting, but I still have my reservations.

 

[Disir]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

No. You are dealing with media conglomerates and they have interests they want to protect. Even your allegedly independent sources are receiving funding from nitwits like Gates and the Macarthur Foundation. Opining is not fact and 20 shows professing to offer analysis is not news. BBC has an agenda. NPR has an agenda. Red State has an agenda. Town Hall has an agenda. Yellow journalism is not new.

For domestic issues, I look at them as snot nosed children on a playground that can't wait to tell on each other in an effort to divert attention and I might read multiple articles on the same subject. For international news, international sources are included.

 

[Coyote]

The more I hear and learn about politics and the media that reports on it, the less I trust either (politicians or media outlets). This includes all of the majors (CNN, msnbc, fox too).

I just think that every news site is biased in favor of their political affiliation, regardless of what side they are on.

I guess that led me to wonder, is there such thing as a totally unbiased, and honest news tv show or website out there, even if it's not a U.S based organization but one that does report on U.S. issues (such as BBC).

I'm just trying to find news I can trust, but I feel most U.S. based media is tainted. Perhaps there isn't a single reliable method of getting daily news that you can trust, but I thought I'd ask, to see what places most of you folks go to, to get your news.

No. You are dealing with media conglomerates and they have interests they want to protect. Even your allegedly independent sources are receiving funding from nitwits like Gates and the Macarthur Foundation. Opining is not fact and 20 shows professing to offer analysis is not news. BBC has an agenda. NPR has an agenda. Red State has an agenda. Town Hall has an agenda. Yellow journalism is not new.

For domestic issues, I look at them as snot nosed children on a playground that can't wait to tell on each other in an effort to divert attention and I might read multiple articles on the same subject. For international news, international sources are included.

Actually, that in itself is another good topic. More and more media sources are being owned by fewer and fewer entities.

That should concern us all.

 

[Coyote]

I find international sources to be a very interesting way of viewing US events as well - it adds another perspective.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There is no such thing as "unbiased".

Humans are essentially incapable of pure objectivity. Everyone has a perspective.

Look at a lot of sources. Actually read the articles, not just the headlines. Read another article on it. Think critically. Examine everything.

 

[regent]

Can we depend on the president's tweets as being truthful?

 

[tycho1572]

Fox is doing an excellent job with giving their viewers unbiased news.