unbiased news

[Rick 67]

A topic brought up in another thread yesterday.

In searching the web on this topic I found this. I do not know anything about the author but I found it interesting. Like this comment "Moreover, we, as humans, seem to naturally default to those areas that we find comfort in—places of camaraderie, communion, self-affirmation and self-improvement."

But if we only use the sources that cater to our preconceived ideas we can never understand the other side of the story.

Here is what he says about AlterNet “NO GOVERNMENT, CORPORATE OR ADVERTISING $$$,”. Which (as pointed out by Turtle yesterday) seems to be a good criteria for impartial reporting.

So my question is where do you go for 'fair and balanced" news?

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[CornishChris 5]

I tend to find the BBC pretty unbiased. I think that is because of the way it is paid for (by a license fee that all TV owners pay(generally)) so that it has to be representative of everyone and can't be perceived as biased.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[NewGuy2005 51]

NPR

[Rick 67]

According to Business Insider the BBC is on the top of the list for most trusted news outlet across all ideological groups. Looks like PBS is the most trusted U.S. news source.
It's funny looking at this chart the "consistently conservative" do not seem to trust any news sources except Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.

The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that everyone trusts.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[DanG 1]

Quote

NPR

Yep. They are not only fairly unbiased, but high quality. NPR listeners are at the top of the "most informed" lists in studies I've seen.

PBS is very good, too, but holy shit the PBS News Hour can be boring. I usually watch the first 30 minutes, when they cover the major stories. The second half, when they usually dig deep into a specific issue, can put an insomniac to sleep sometimes.

- Dan G

[Rick 67]

BBC NPR PBS top 3 on the list

awesome thanks I will stop clicking on the first link I see and try to get some unbiased news

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 634]

Sometimes rather funny as well.
OMG I laughed my behind off listening to this one.

[Rick 67]

untapped un-talent

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 634]

Hey, I just remembered, the last time you hopped in my truck with me and I had NPR on the radio.....
you said "I feel like I'm in my grandfather's truck"!

You might get some looks listening to NPR on your Harley.

[Rick 67]

But hey it beat the hell out of that country noise you listen to

is that 90.7 locally?

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 634]

HEY!


Yup. WMFE, their website has a streaming link too.

[wolfriverjoe 1,364]

Rick

is that 90.7 locally?

NPR is at the "bottom of the dial" all over the country (for the most part).

I drive truck and can usually find an NPR station by scanning below 92mhz.

And there is no "unbiased" news. Even the highly regarded outlets have stuff that they are biased on (for example, NPR is biased anti-gun).

They key is to find a variety of news outlets (NPR & BBC are the two I trust the most) and then make sure to compare and contrast them with other, differing views.

For example, comparing and contrasting Fox, Blaze & Breitbart won't do much good.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,450]

>I tend to find the BBC pretty unbiased.

Agreed. Also the Economist.

However, I think I find them unbiased not because they are truly unbiased, but because their biases are largely irrelevant to me (I am not part of the UK political process.) When most people talk about bias in the US, they mean "republican" or "democrat." If a source in the US started publishing news with a strong pro-tardigrade bias, it would likely be seen as unbiased, simply because no one in the US cares about tardigrades.

(Of course in the US eventually someone would notice that tardigrades have something to do with science, and that they are animals that fill an ecological niche, and are thus lefty business-killing socialists. But until they noticed that, it might be seen as unbiased by both sides.)

[RMK 3]

Rick

BBC NPR PBS top 3 on the list

I'd agree with this same list and add The Economist and FT. I've always liked the Wall Street Journal (but knowing that Murdoch now owns WSJ, I don't have any psychological comfort with them anymore.

Noting the comments above re "dull" news, this definitely applies to the BBC. It will never be as pleasurable to watch as say the NBC Nightly News, but just telling you what is happening shouldn't be driven by entertainment value - it should be news.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Rick 67]

RMK

..... but just telling you what is happening shouldn't be driven by entertainment value - it should be news.

I agree with this. When FOX news started "reporting" on American Idol I had to change the channel.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[rushmc 18]

NewGuy2005

NPR

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Rick 67]

the Economist looks to be a good place to get news.

I think I am going with NPR BBC and The Economist for a good mix of articles.

Good point about foreign news sources not having the Dem Repub bias. Also interesting to see how the rest of the world views what is happening in the U.S.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[jclalor 12]

For the 24 hour news networks, Al Jazeera seems the most unbiased.

[Rick 67]

jclalor

For the 24 hour news networks, Al Jazeera seems the most unbiased.

I saw that Al Jazeera America is closing down

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[TriGirl 278]

(you beat me to it!)

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[turtlespeed 212]

Rick

***For the 24 hour news networks, Al Jazeera seems the most unbiased.

I saw that Al Jazeera America is closing down

It wasn't biased enough, and women were reporting and not getting stoned to death.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Anachronist 2]

Speaking about politics only, which I think is the focus of this thread...

There is no such thing as unbiased news, if there were it would just be raw data with no interpretation. NPR has a liberal bias, the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bias. The BBC leans to a slightly conservative Briton which corresponds to a slightly liberal United States.

The key is to gather info from several sources and use your powers of observation and reasoning to try and pluck the meaningful information out of it while understanding the motive of the authors.

FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are purely "infotainment." Television in general is of poor quality, though I do like PBS and can tolerate the BBC.

To add to the list of worthwhile reading are Reuters (minimally biased) The Atlantic (liberal bias) The New Yorker (liberal bias) and Al Jazeera (difficult to describe bias). I like Al Jazeera because of a low level of censorship, I really don't care about the opinions of the writers, though it does give an insight into how non-westerners think. US news is very "sterile" by comparison. (edit: they still publish in English, and did before they launched the "America" version.)

I like to find things that are "thought provoking," regardless of bias or topic. If the argument is sound and the information not hugely distorted, I'll read it, even if I'd like to tell the author how much of a jerk they are. You can learn a lot about other people and issues you thought you knew by reading material that you strongly disagree with. "It takes all kinds," in a manner of speaking.

[TriGirl 278]

Anachronist

Speaking about politics only, which I think is the focus of this thread...

There is no such thing as unbiased news, if there were it would just be raw data with no interpretation.

Actually, even choosing which stories to report, and in which order, illustrates a bias. But I otherwise support your point.

Quote

The key is to gather info from several sources and use your powers of observation and reasoning to try and pluck the meaningful information out of it while understanding the motive of the authors.

Agreed. Also important is to choose which sources to compare. Putting Fox against NPR, for example, is not a fair comparison. Or CNN against BBC.

Quote

FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are purely "infotainment."

This. However, they do provide some insight into the opinions, point of view, and, indirectly, the level of apathy of the audiences that keep these programs running.

Quote

I like to find things that are "thought provoking," regardless of bias or topic. If the argument is sound and the information not hugely distorted, I'll read it, even if I'd like to tell the author how much of a jerk they are. You can learn a lot about other people and issues you thought you knew by reading material that you strongly disagree with. "It takes all kinds," in a manner of speaking.

The key is to look into what isn't being reported, or how the facts are being presented. Kind of like the other thread where people pointed out that Trump* just spouts off "I'll do this," and "I'll make XX pay for it!" and other vague, unsupported, faulty premised campaign promises, but gains so much support as a legitimate candidate because such a huge portion of our population cares not to look behind the curtain. Just because a report resonates, does not indicate that the reader/listener is actually informed on the topic. I wish the provoked thoughts would lead more often to provoking the desire to research in support of full consideration as well.

*I'll submit many other candidates are equally guilty of this tactic -- Trump was just the subject of the discussion in the other thread.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[quade 3]

Rick

So my question is where do you go for 'fair and balanced" news?

No one place. I try to find several different places reporting on stories if possible. I try to find several different view points on the subject. I almost immediately reject as "100% true" the statements of almost any company or government spokesman because I know that is simply whatever they wish me to hear. There may be truth in there, but there may also be a few lies as well either outright or by omission. I tend to believe 3rd parties who have done independent research and especially if there are a lot of them and can show their sources. I tend to believe facts more than opinion. It's not hard to tell the difference if a person tries. Far too many people are simply willing to believe whatever a pretty face is telling them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Can you show me a 3rd party source that proves NPR has a liberal bias? Every study I've seen shows them to be just slightly left of center, if not prety much at the center.

I know it's a conservative belief that reality has a liberal bias, and NPR reports reality, so maybe that's your problem with them.

- Dan G