Unbiased News Sources?
- Thread starter Deleted member 9824
- Start date
This, NPR has had its ups and downs so I don't bother any longer.
I see plenty of liberals posting alarmist clickbait garbage from DailyKos, PoliticsUSA and ThinkProgress regularly.
That's disappointing. Do you think it's at a comparable volume as the garbage posted/believed by the conservatives? Genuinely curious because I'm not super active on social media, but my impression is the right is a million times worse than the left with this.
I think conservatives are more vociferous on the whole, especially when you have so-called politicians re-tweeting or outright sanctioning cesspits like Breitbart. I think "a million times worse" is a bit hyperbolic, but I'm less concerned with trying to convince "real patriots" on the right to stop fucking reading conspiracy-theory level bullshit about pizzagate than I am about trying to educate fellow liberals/leftists to stop knee-jerk reposting alarmist trash.
OP
OP
That's absolutely true, but I don't know where else to ask. Actually, I could have gone on Quora and reddit, but fuck reddit, and most of the Quora answers are relatively recent.
Gotcha. Why are you more concerned about the left if the conservatives are more vociferous and the misinformation extends to their politicians? Bc the "real patriots" are a lost cause?
So you think people who will give you sources don't have biases?
I was talking more in the vein of taking several news sources and comparing how they tell the same story. Than, regardless of your own biases, you take away all impossible and illogical stuff from the story and arrive to more or less unbiased version of what really had happened.
Of course, after that you still will interpret it through the lens of your own preferences, but that's another matter and if you so adamant, that every source is biased, I don't think you will be very interested in unbiased source anyway.
You don't build momentum by trying to push the heaviest rock first.
Sure, using several sources is useful for removing some bias, provided you aren't using several sources with the same biases. Not much point comparing Fox News to Brietbart for example.
I still fail to see how this site is bad for finding those places to compare sources. Most of the sources listed in this thread are decidedly the most neutral you can find.
I won't argue with this opinion.
But I just ask one question: isn't this opinion is also biased?
Ooo.. that's interesting, and a Canadian edition to boot. Did this launch recently?
I honestly think your best bet is to keep doing what you're doing.
Diversify your news sources.
Diversify your news sources.
It's been around for several years already, but I've only discovered it a few months ago. Its existence is helpful in a time where theres distrust in the mainstream media. I hope it gets more popular. I love how theres alot of contribution from canadian academics.
It's a pretty great resource overall for the general public
https://theconversation.com/institutions
Last edited:
Just quoting this single post, but there are too many of these in this thread.
You need to differentiate between news agencies, TV broadcasters, radio broadcasters, and newspapers. Each of them have very different purposes.
AP, Reuters, AFP etc. are news agencies. They gather news and provide the core of a news story, this is what the others use as their sources. NPR is merely a syndication a couple of hundred radio stations, a non-commercial and public one with the effect of not following certain agendas or commercial interests.
We're talking about unbiased sources here. Even if I consider BBC, The Economist, or the WaPo as highly reliable, trustworthy and high quality media outlets, by no means are they unbiased.
As much of the thread has pointed out, there really isn't such thing as unbiased anything. Let alone news.
How do you guys feel about informed, highly educated, right wing sources? Places like The National Review, or The Weekly Standard? Heck, when BreitBart pops up in my Google.news feed I'll give them a click. Any person who argues on the basis of intellect should view the opposition. Right?
NPR does produce its own national news programs like All Things Considered and Morning Edition. It has its own team of journalists and reporters.
Last edited:
Not a publication but Google is taking steps to tackle the issue of trust: https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism-news/sorting-through-information-help-trust-project/
Should be interesting how effective the tags will be in informing readers once they become visible on search engines and news aggregators. Or maybe they'll be irrelevant.
Should be interesting how effective the tags will be in informing readers once they become visible on search engines and news aggregators. Or maybe they'll be irrelevant.
Absolutely. Reality is not 'unbiased', and the kind of bullshit centrism that news companies such as CNN have promoted is in its way more dangerous than the crazed frothing of the FOX's of the world. All opinions are not equally valuable. OP, use your brain when reading news, and bear in mind that a publication having a political position us not in itself a bad thing - for e.g, the Economist is a journal absolutely devoted to free market dogma, but is still a useful (and often excellent) source of news and analysis: the intelligent reader can deduce for themselves when to discount part of the message.
If you don't care about politics, why do you bother with the news? News is inherently political. You won't find an unbiased news source unless robots have created one already. I think you mean neutral?
Associated Press, Reuters, and others have their own biases too.
Just a quick criticism.
2nd paragraph: you could find the most unibiased, objective factual reporting in the world, true. But then you have to look at the range of stories your unbiased source is producing. Editorial choice is a secondary channel of bias.
3rd paragraph: while the actual process of doing science, particularly if it's lab-based, is objective, the interpretation of results, the choice of study by the researcher & the ability to get funding all lead to bias in science, not to mention race & gender bias in most fields. Another example is that Engineering & Technology departments will often bias their research with an eye to commercial applications, which again can impact subject choice & funding.
If anyone is interested for media Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is still the best thing written about bias in media, and for an overview of how our upbringing & social status biases us toward certain types of cultural product & politics a good starter is 'Distinction' by Pierre Bordieu.
Ok I'm going to make my own version of this right now.Insert obligatory source trust chart
Trust:
The Economist
BBC
PBS
WSJ
ABC
NBC
CBS
NYT
WaPo
The Guardian
Bloomberg
DRUDGE
Equally Trust and Distrust:
NPR
CNN
Fox News
MSNBC
Politico
Al Jazeera
Distrust:
The Blaze
Mother Jones
Slate
Breitbart
HuffPo
ThinkProgress
Daily Kos
Any pundit show
Lol:
USA Today
Google News
The New Yorker
Yahoo News
You think the New Yorker is worse than Breibart?
And NPR and Al Jazera are equivalent with Fox News?
did you go to "muh both sydz" morons on reddit to get this list?
Honestly, you're already doing what you should be doing. Read many sources and form your own opinion.
It was never popular in the US:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...01/14/this-is-what-doomed-al-jazeera-america/
I mean, fair. But there's a whole YouTube channel with tons of information on worldwide news.
Internet viewing/reading is not quite up to TV levels yet:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/americans-online-news-use-vs-tv-news-use/
If you want news with a conservative slant at least read WSJ or The Economist.
Why would you give money to hack job blogs like those.
So basically just stick to the Wall Street Journal as it's the only one that covers all the bases.Insert obligatory source trust chart
That's kind of eye opening, never read the economist but i do prefer BBC for world news even though I'm American.
That's funny, I thought conservatives hate the wall street journal.
Centrist, staid. Not especially interesting. Trustable, much like the other boring news networks. Sometimes they pick up something juicy.
Lol isn't worse, I just literally laughed at the idea of getting my news from that highbrow rag. Actually, a few years ago, I remember reading this New Yorker piece (I might misremember some details) about how the author had spent a lot of money on their Thanksgiving turkey so that it would be raised ethically, they even got to meet the turkey before it was slaughtered, they went through a big whole thing and purchased it and took it home, and when they got around to eating it it wasn't even that good. Then she tried some Cheetos or Pringles or something for the first time in years and it was the best thing she'd ever had. And she went on and on about how this really changed her perspective about food and that maybe people should enjoy the simple things in life. It was basically the most quintessential New Yorker piece ever and I decided then that I could dismiss the whole zine out of band.
I'd rank those as NPR > Al Jazeera > Fox. But I've had issues with all three in the past. If we're just talking about printed material, all three are fine. If we're talking about their serialized format (radio and TV) then I've had serious issues with the presentation and the omission of details. For the record I do have my bona fides and listen to Morning Edition and Marketplace almost daily. Some of the other programming is just not as good or trustworthy and there's a fairly obvious bias during interviews. I think the most memorable thing for me was when they interviewed Ben Carson about some HUD stuff and asked him some terrible loaded questions and that really left a bad taste in my mouth.
Yes, actually, I went over to the Muh Both Sydz convenience store and picked myself up a $2.00 box of whataboutisms along with a 200ml container of gish-gallop.
Oh i have no clue but it's the only one on that chart that seems to cover A-Z. I'm sure that means both sides would feel salty when they occasionally lean more left one day and more right the next.
Now a days people seem to want news sources that strictly report with their ideal slant to reaffirm their ideals. That to me is a recipe for disaster.
Not really a good takeaway since Americans are much more conservative than others, which is why you see conservatives almost always picking actual fake news outrage outlets like Hannity over more reliable news outlets.
On that entire list, the only "news" (and not opinion) outlet that conservatives seem to trust are WSJ and Fox News (which is also debatable as far as being news is concerned). Shows how much aversion to facts there is in America.
(al-Jazeera being so distrusted also shows that there is bigotry involved there as well)