Unbiased news sources

[PeterS]

yeah, cause the left wouldn't have done ANYTHING to contribute to that

They haven't. We have a media environment today were you've got sources like Fox with an extreme bias toward the right and sources like the networks who are called "liberal" even though they're pretty balanced on average, and where balance doesn't exist, it's always in favor of the right.

that is just fucking INSANE
FNC is the RESULTS of news bias, that how they came into being was to respond to a KNOWN bias that already existed
had that bias not already existed, FNC would never have made it

A response to bias or a response to those who wanted biased news? If it was a response to bias it would have framed news from the objective. If it was a response to those who sought bias it would have framed news from the subjective. FNC chose the latter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which news sources do you use for unbiased news?

No such animal.

 

[Annie]

"Known bias". And yet, the so-called liberal media gives disproportionate voice to conservatives (which can be proven mathematically, since conservatives are far more likely to get appear on the Sunday shows) and is much less critical of claims made by Republicans. Dispute anything a Republican claims, even if it's that the sky is pink, and you're instantly labeled as biased. The result is Republicans get a free pass from the media, because the most critical thing for journalists is access. You'll noticed that a lot of Democrats are willing to go on Fox, but you'll rarely, if ever, see Republicans going on MSNBC.

Then site the studies with sources.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Known bias". And yet, the so-called liberal media gives disproportionate voice to conservatives (which can be proven mathematically, since conservatives are far more likely to get appear on the Sunday shows) and is much less critical of claims made by Republicans. Dispute anything a Republican claims, even if it's that the sky is pink, and you're instantly labeled as biased. The result is Republicans get a free pass from the media, because the most critical thing for journalists is access. You'll noticed that a lot of Democrats are willing to go on Fox, but you'll rarely, if ever, see Republicans going on MSNBC.

Then site the studies with sources.

The only reason the current crop of power in non fox networls are not quite as left leaning in their reports ( rather less obvious) is BECAUSE of Fox. Before Fox the MSM did not give much of anything to anyone that was not left of center.

They are only playing along now because they are losing so badly.

 

[PeterS]

"Known bias". And yet, the so-called liberal media gives disproportionate voice to conservatives (which can be proven mathematically, since conservatives are far more likely to get appear on the Sunday shows) and is much less critical of claims made by Republicans. Dispute anything a Republican claims, even if it's that the sky is pink, and you're instantly labeled as biased. The result is Republicans get a free pass from the media, because the most critical thing for journalists is access. You'll noticed that a lot of Democrats are willing to go on Fox, but you'll rarely, if ever, see Republicans going on MSNBC.

Then site the studies with sources.

The only reason the current crop of power in non fox networls are not quite as left leaning in their reports ( rather less obvious) is BECAUSE of Fox. Before Fox the MSM did not give much of anything to anyone that was not left of center.

They are only playing along now because they are losing so badly.

Playing along? Fox is framed to pander to conservatives. If other news source were playing along then they would be framed to pander to specific ideologies not mainstream.

 

[mdn2000]

Then site the studies with sources.

The only reason the current crop of power in non fox networls are not quite as left leaning in their reports ( rather less obvious) is BECAUSE of Fox. Before Fox the MSM did not give much of anything to anyone that was not left of center.

They are only playing along now because they are losing so badly.

Playing along? Fox is framed to pander to conservatives. If other news source were playing along then they would be framed to pander to specific ideologies not mainstream.

Fox news has a major portion of it owned by Saudi Arabia.

news should be just that news and its not, its all propaganda. The word news should be stripped from all the networks.

 

[JW Frogen]

Fox and Al Jazeera as translated by Howard Stern.

 

[midcan5]

Media changed with the revisionist movement. Bad news is not pleasant unless it is politically motivated or involves the failings of those poor creatures: human beings. Pleasure often grows from the pain of others and bad news appeals to that side of us.

One of the big revisionist piece is the transformation of Joe McCarthy by the right. Fear seems to create insanity in some, 911 demonstrated that so well. Political correctness now informs all information and since communism was bad Joe was good; how else can some use the term today to marginalize others.

But Media is corporate owned and operated and its members come from the higher reaches of society and have learned the game. The game is don't be too outspoken or you will find yourself marginalizes as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky are, be good and praise ChinaMart or you may lose your job or find yourself doing the wedding page. And so it goes....

Here is an excellent contemporary example of R and spin too. BS in utterwords.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Revisionist History | Video Cafe


Joe Friday:
FactCheck.org

truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics on taxes, government spending, economic performance, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other political issues.
their corruption list
truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics and Corruption

stats - helpful?
Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

fox watchers
News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don't have to.

interesting who got more negative media?
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American

"Claims of media bias raised by politicians from either party should be regarded as exceptionally suspect for several reasons. First, politicians might prefer that a news source be perceived as biased against them, even if the source is actually unbiased. As Matthew Baum and I demonstrate elsewhere (Baum and Groeling forthcoming), when members of the public perceive the news to be biased against a candidate or party, harmful messages from that outlet are discounted, while favorable messages are seen as particularly credible. Similarly, partisans might strategically choose to allege bias--even in the absence of such bias--in an attempt to "work the ref"--that is, vociferously protest a close call in an attempt to have the next one go your way."


Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. | Goliath Business News

 

[mdn2000]

Media changed with the revisionist movement. Bad news is not pleasant unless it is politically motivated or involves the failings of those poor creatures: human beings. Pleasure often grows from the pain of others and bad news appeals to that side of us.

One of the big revisionist piece is the transformation of Joe McCarthy by the right. Fear seems to create insanity in some, 911 demonstrated that so well. Political correctness now informs all information and since communism was bad Joe was good; how else can some use the term today to marginalize others.

But Media is corporate owned and operated and its members come from the higher reaches of society and have learned the game. The game is don't be too outspoken or you will find yourself marginalizes as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky are, be good and praise ChinaMart or you may lose your job or find yourself doing the wedding page. And so it goes....

Here is an excellent contemporary example of R and spin too. BS in utterwords.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Revisionist History | Video Cafe


Joe Friday:
FactCheck.org

truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics on taxes, government spending, economic performance, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other political issues.
their corruption list
truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics and Corruption

stats - helpful?
Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

fox watchers
News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don't have to.

interesting who got more negative media?
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American

"Claims of media bias raised by politicians from either party should be regarded as exceptionally suspect for several reasons. First, politicians might prefer that a news source be perceived as biased against them, even if the source is actually unbiased. As Matthew Baum and I demonstrate elsewhere (Baum and Groeling forthcoming), when members of the public perceive the news to be biased against a candidate or party, harmful messages from that outlet are discounted, while favorable messages are seen as particularly credible. Similarly, partisans might strategically choose to allege bias--even in the absence of such bias--in an attempt to "work the ref"--that is, vociferously protest a close call in an attempt to have the next one go your way."


Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. | Goliath Business News

Joe was good, the revisionism is coming from the Democrat/Liberal/Marxists

 

[PeterS]

Media changed with the revisionist movement. Bad news is not pleasant unless it is politically motivated or involves the failings of those poor creatures: human beings. Pleasure often grows from the pain of others and bad news appeals to that side of us.

One of the big revisionist piece is the transformation of Joe McCarthy by the right. Fear seems to create insanity in some, 911 demonstrated that so well. Political correctness now informs all information and since communism was bad Joe was good; how else can some use the term today to marginalize others.

But Media is corporate owned and operated and its members come from the higher reaches of society and have learned the game. The game is don't be too outspoken or you will find yourself marginalizes as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky are, be good and praise ChinaMart or you may lose your job or find yourself doing the wedding page. And so it goes....

Here is an excellent contemporary example of R and spin too. BS in utterwords.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Revisionist History | Video Cafe


Joe Friday:
FactCheck.org

truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics on taxes, government spending, economic performance, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other political issues.
their corruption list
truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics and Corruption

stats - helpful?
Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

fox watchers
News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don't have to.

interesting who got more negative media?
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American

"Claims of media bias raised by politicians from either party should be regarded as exceptionally suspect for several reasons. First, politicians might prefer that a news source be perceived as biased against them, even if the source is actually unbiased. As Matthew Baum and I demonstrate elsewhere (Baum and Groeling forthcoming), when members of the public perceive the news to be biased against a candidate or party, harmful messages from that outlet are discounted, while favorable messages are seen as particularly credible. Similarly, partisans might strategically choose to allege bias--even in the absence of such bias--in an attempt to "work the ref"--that is, vociferously protest a close call in an attempt to have the next one go your way."


Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. | Goliath Business News

Joe was good, the revisionism is coming from the Democrat/Liberal/Marxists

You left out anti-American communist satanists...

 

[Mr. H.]

I like BBC World News as broadcast on NPR. Unbiased? Perhaps not.

 

[mdn2000]

Media changed with the revisionist movement. Bad news is not pleasant unless it is politically motivated or involves the failings of those poor creatures: human beings. Pleasure often grows from the pain of others and bad news appeals to that side of us.

One of the big revisionist piece is the transformation of Joe McCarthy by the right. Fear seems to create insanity in some, 911 demonstrated that so well. Political correctness now informs all information and since communism was bad Joe was good; how else can some use the term today to marginalize others.

But Media is corporate owned and operated and its members come from the higher reaches of society and have learned the game. The game is don't be too outspoken or you will find yourself marginalizes as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky are, be good and praise ChinaMart or you may lose your job or find yourself doing the wedding page. And so it goes....

Here is an excellent contemporary example of R and spin too. BS in utterwords.

The Rachel Maddow Show: Revisionist History | Video Cafe


Joe Friday:
FactCheck.org

truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics on taxes, government spending, economic performance, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other political issues.
their corruption list
truthfulpolitics.com - Truthful Politics and Corruption

stats - helpful?
Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

fox watchers
News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don't have to.

interesting who got more negative media?
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American

"Claims of media bias raised by politicians from either party should be regarded as exceptionally suspect for several reasons. First, politicians might prefer that a news source be perceived as biased against them, even if the source is actually unbiased. As Matthew Baum and I demonstrate elsewhere (Baum and Groeling forthcoming), when members of the public perceive the news to be biased against a candidate or party, harmful messages from that outlet are discounted, while favorable messages are seen as particularly credible. Similarly, partisans might strategically choose to allege bias--even in the absence of such bias--in an attempt to "work the ref"--that is, vociferously protest a close call in an attempt to have the next one go your way."


Who's the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. | Goliath Business News

Joe was good, the revisionism is coming from the Democrat/Liberal/Marxists

You left out anti-American communist satanists...

No I didnt, that what a Marxist/Liberal Obama president is, democrat-liberal-marxist-antiamerican-communist-satanists.

 

[Polk]

FNC would not have succeeded if it had not been biased to the right to balance the left.

Or, you know, the more obvious answer. That even in a world of objective media, there is a market for biased information. People like things that confirm beliefs they already have.

Yes, numbers indicate that cons get airtime. Numbers can also indicate that libs get airtime on FNC. How FNC depicts those libs is another story. Same with the former.

If you're going to mention some data, you really should present the source of it. I'm assuming you are correct for now.

It's not just that they get airtime. It's that they get a disproportionate amount of airtime. Just focusing on the Sunday shows for a second (since that's where the vast majority of political commentary on the major networks takes place), Republicans got more of the airtime during the Clinton administration because "it's important to let the opposition have an venue to speak". That's an acceptable view as long as it's consistent, but it wasn't. During Clinton's second term, 52% of guests on the Sunday shows were Republicans. The instant the Republicans return to power in 2001, the argument becomes that they should get more airtime because it was "important to hear from the people in power". The percentage of guests that were Republicans jumped to 58% during Bush's first term.

 

[Polk]

"Known bias". And yet, the so-called liberal media gives disproportionate voice to conservatives (which can be proven mathematically, since conservatives are far more likely to get appear on the Sunday shows) and is much less critical of claims made by Republicans. Dispute anything a Republican claims, even if it's that the sky is pink, and you're instantly labeled as biased. The result is Republicans get a free pass from the media, because the most critical thing for journalists is access. You'll noticed that a lot of Democrats are willing to go on Fox, but you'll rarely, if ever, see Republicans going on MSNBC.

Then site the studies with sources.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

Before you go "Media Matters", it's not like they can cook the numbers, since all of this information is public record.

 

[mdn2000]

FNC would not have succeeded if it had not been biased to the right to balance the left.

Or, you know, the more obvious answer. That even in a world of objective media, there is a market for biased information. People like things that confirm beliefs they already have.

People also like the truth, even more so in times of trouble, that is what is driving the popularity of FOX, that is why all the rest are losing, cant fool all the people all of the time.