Where do you find good unbiased news?

[theDoctorisIn]

The Economist. Christian Science Monitor. Al-Jazeera. BBC. fivethirtyeight. thealbanyproject.

 

[Colin]

I never ceases to amaze me how people outside of Britain consider the BBC to be unbiased. The truth is, it isn't. The BBC, although its charter demands impartiality, is utterly biased to the left and has been so for decades.

 

[Douger]

That's not possible. Every single thing you see, hear, read or have been taught is/was based on lies,greed and ego.
Mankind ( that's as ironic as military intelligence) has covered up the truth for over 6000 years.
I hope we live long enough to see it unveiled.

 

[Vast LWC]

BBC has been know to lean liberal as has PBS and the editorial pages of the WA Post.

Fox and eib are definately right leaning while msnbc and air america are definately left leaning.

CNN, depending on the anchor, can be either nuetral or liberal.

I never really used the christian science monitor but it sounds conservative


I'm not saying you are right/wrong just saying my opinion is different than yours.

There are no unbiased sources. This is why you have to watch multiple sources to get your information then decide what you feel is the most accurate.

Personally I read al-jezeera online a lot for news about America in the international community.

yep, with you on these. though what I like about CNN is that it really TRIES to be neutral, even if it fails sometimes, that scores a lot of points with me.

though I've never read al-jazeera online.

Oh and CSM isn't conservative strangely enough, I think it's slightly to the left.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Washington Post is one of the most outwardly biased, least credible, obscenely unreliable and dishonest major outlets in America. The editorial board are uniformly laissez-faire, pro-war in any instance, staunchly zionist, obsequious and deferential to power, administration water carriers. They never met an anonymous government source they didn't like and serve as an outlet for the last two administrations to pass on whatever propaganda they want.


Democracy Now A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S. is perhaps the best online news source

I don't really think there's a national TV channel or newspaper that isn't seriously influenced by its corporate owners to not be adversarial to government and corporate power the way that all journalists should be. Most wind up being mindless stenographers of government claims.

umm, I think you may be mixing up the Washington Post and the Washington Times.

 

[Jarhead]

One with the ability to independently think does not need to seek an unbiased medium.

I watch Fox News and CNN.....

You see....regardless of what the partisan hacks claim, neither are biased with how they report....they are biased on what they opt to report on.

Fox will report failry about a DENM that cheated.....CNN will report frairly about a REP that cheated....But sadly, neither will report on the other one that cheated.

During the Bush administration, Fox would accurately report on the good our troops were doing in Iraq....CNN would accurately report on the neegatives of our presence in Iraq....but, again, niehter would report on the opposite stories...

To find out about the negatives about Obama and the positives about McCain during the campaign, I watched Fox.

To evaluate the negatives aboiut McCain and the positives about Obama,, I watched CNN

SO I watch both and NEVER listen to the Hannity's and Maddows....

Works for me.

 

[JimH52]

The Washington Post is good. Fox News Channel and Fox Business News are my favorites because they have conservatives AND liberals on as guests. I can hear both sides on those shows I watch on FOX.

FOX is the biggest hack job on TV. They are owned by an Australian with an agenda.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I read the local paper here (St. Petersburg Times), I know people who think they lean liberal, and people who think they lean conservative. They tend to be pretty fair-although sometimes I sense them being biased towards the left.

Also there can be good reliable news that is somewhat biased. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are good examples of this. Both of them obviously are biased in the opposite direction-but they don't print garbage stories, and their news can be seen as reliable.

Ultimately there's no such thing as unbiased news sources, so is someone questions everything they read, and go to multiple sources, you should do ok.

 

[Vast LWC]

I read the local paper here (St. Petersburg Times), I know people who think they lean liberal, and people who think they lean conservative. They tend to be pretty fair-although sometimes I sense them being biased towards the left.

Also there can be good reliable news that is somewhat biased. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are good examples of this. Both of them obviously are biased in the opposite direction-but they don't print garbage stories, and their news can be seen as reliable.

Ultimately there's no such thing as unbiased news sources, so is someone questions everything they read, and go to multiple sources, you should do ok.

Good point on the Times and the WSJ. They may be biased, but both have journalistic integrity. That is except in their opinion pages.

I have been worried for some time that WSJ ownership by Murdoch would change this, but I have not seen much evidence in support of that happening as of yet. Though the WSJ did expand their politics section, which is a bit worrisome.

 

[konradv]

Where do you find good unbiased news? I realize that all news organizations are biased to some extent, however some clearly have an agenda. Here is what I came up with. Do you agree? If not where would you turn to get fair news coverage?

The Best:
BBC News
Christian Science Monitor
Washington Post
PBS
CNN


The Worst:
Fox News
MSNBC
EIB Network
Air American

What about the Internet? I have no idea. There are loads of news web sites but most have strong right or left leanings.

The barber shop!

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think you can find "unbiased" news. Everyone has their biases and I think it is ridiculous to expect them to put them away completely.

So the question should be "Where do you find a good news service?"

I have to say that I will turn to either of these:

CNN
Fox
MSNBC

during the times when they are presenting the news of the day. I have gotten sick and tired of all the talking heads on both sides so I have lost interest in what they have to say and avoid their programs for now. But the news can be found in pretty good quantity at either one of these cable networks. Yes, you will get their bias, but you tend to get the news. Weed out their comments and at least you know what is going on in the world. Make up your own mind from there.

Of those three, I prefer CNN because it seems more focused on reporting the news rather than commentating on it. But I have to admit that when I want opinion, I generally go to Fox, because... well, damn, they have an opinion!

As for the written news, I like the WSJ and USA Today, but I will read whatever is handy on an issue that interests me.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

The Washington Post is good. Fox News Channel and Fox Business News are my favorites because they have conservatives AND liberals on as guests. I can hear both sides on those shows I watch on FOX.

FOX is the biggest hack job on TV. They are owned by an Australian with an agenda.

I take it you dont watch Fox News.
If you did, you would not say that.

So in a way...that sort of makes you a hack.

 

[DiamondDave]

Sort of?

 

[AllieBaba]

Where do you find good unbiased news? I realize that all news organizations are biased to some extent, however some clearly have an agenda. Here is what I came up with. Do you agree? If not where would you turn to get fair news coverage?

The Best:
BBC News
Christian Science Monitor
Washington Post
PBS
CNN


The Worst:
Fox News
MSNBC
EIB Network
Air American

What about the Internet? I have no idea. There are loads of news web sites but most have strong right or left leanings.

I get my news from sourcelists that originated with TM, Rtard, and Sky. I have found they are the most entertaining.

 

[Iowa10000]

the first mistake anyone makes is thinking that companies that do things for profit and beholding to certain ideoligy are ever going to be truly factual.
For the most part wichever way a station or paper leans is where they search for the truth.

I watch a lot of what is being put off as news and I can tell you most of it is not. Msnbc reports from a point of view that supports their beliefs, but often will call things out from both sides that don't meet the mustard.

Fox new is almost 100% reporting in a matter that gives you an opinion of what happens and then has a conversation about that opinin as it is established proof or truth.

But the truth is if you want a real idea you must search it out listening to all points of view and using your own brain to figure out where the real truth is, which rarely is presented in an unbias matter.

I found a report that has no real bias and is just what the number when put together shows to be true. What it does is allow people to take what is in the report and point to things they think proves their point or way of thinking.

But by many the report was blasted as bias or unfair because it didn't mean anything to them or it didn't go in the direction of what they believe or have been told.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

This report was done by a guy who many have used to put forth their point of view using information from his work, but when it doesn't do what people would like to hear he is vilified.

 

[Iowa10000]

There is also one thing that I look for and that is anyone who tries to put a story forth that they are using to prove their beliefs or leanings but they either know is not factual or they distort by using pictures that are bogus in an attemp to make people believe in a certain way.

Often they will use fake background in an attempt to make people believe it is part of their story in order to put forward what they are saying as truth, or they will invert the facts, figures or party name of a person.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is also one thing that I look for and that is anyone who tries to put a story forth that they are using to prove their beliefs or leanings but they either know is not factual or they distort by using pictures that are bogus in an attemp to make people believe in a certain way.

Often they will use fake background in an attempt to make people believe it is part of their story in order to put forward what they are saying as truth.

They usually aren't smart enough to pull it off. It's essentially the *cheating* mind set..."I'm too lazy to research things on my own and I know I'm full of shit, so I'll PRETEND I have a lot of information"!

Unfortunately, they always reveal themselves quickly as know-nothing spastics. It's hard to fake knowledge or even a desire to seek knowledge. This is one of the primary reasons I get really nasty with certain posters. They have no drive to learn anything, they just parrot what they've been told. They won't research, they usually typify all the traits they claim to despise and be above, and they promote just really egregious idiocy...while pretending to be truly *civilized*.

Case in point...Sky calling for peace and harmony and kindness on the open board, then neg repping me whenever I point out what a hypocrite she is. Way to spread that Buddhist light! Woo hoo!

 

[The Gadfly]

I like the New York Times, although I don't think it's unbiased.

Same with PBS.

Wall Street Journal and the Economist are good sources for hard news, too.

I'm of the opinion that unbiased news is basically impossible.

Simply the process of deciding what to report creates a bias.

So even doing his very best, the bias of the editor comes into play.

That is not to say that some "news" sources aren't obviously biased with a motive.

Fox for eample on the right, or Radio Pacifica on the left, both have their obvious politically biased axes to grind.

I think the best way to deal with the bias of the news is to read more history. (also bias by the way, but still useful)

Armed with a fairly good understanding of what came before, one can more easily see where the NEWS is either wrong (honestly, and that happens all the time) or biased intentionally.

We are all victims of misinformation...sometime accidental misinformation, sometimes the misinformation is by design.

And we all come at the news with our own prejudices and presuppositions, too.

So even if we got 100% unbiased news that was always 100% accurate, we'd still end up BIASING the news through our own biased filters.

GOD alone knows the truth.

The rest of us are just doing the best we can given what we've got to work with.

Exactly. It's not enough to just trust any source, and reflexively swallow the content. One has to examine news critically, and preferably from multiple sources, bearing in mind that any editor or reporter is going to pick and slant "news" to fit what they believe will "sell" to their target demographic.

 

[editec]

First of all let us put aside the myth that it is even possible to present UNBIASED news.

The mere act of deciding what one will present as news makes it biased.

But if the question is which media outlets do I think attempt to present us the facts that they think are important to us?

I'm fond of the Economist and the Wall Street Journal for news (and editorials, too) regarding issues of the economy and business (and to a much lesser extent social issues, too).

I used to read the New York Times and still go to their website occassionally.

I also use to like and mostly trusted the Christian Science Monitor back in the 80s.

As to radio? I'm pretty much an NPR listener.

TV?

Well I don't watch it at all, anymore, but when I did, I didn't bother with any of the MSM news in that last decade or so of viewing.

It's not that I think there's some overarching conspiracy to spin the news (well not ususually, Fox so clearly is propaganda that it is a conspiracy to disinform us) it's that the editors of most media are SELF CENSORING.

What I mean by that is by the time they achive the power to decide what is to be reported, they can be counted on to decide the news based on the prejudices that I doubt most of htem even know they have.

 

[Vast LWC]

I must say though that the fact that most posters in this thread are stating that all media is biased, rather than the usual "everyone is biased except for the media I like", is refreshing. Kudos to mostly everyone for lack of hypocrisy