What are the most even-handed, unbiased news sources?

[PaperclipGod]

What are the most even-handed, unbiased news sources?

Or, since I doubt there's a single news source that everyone could agree on as being unbiased, what conservative-slanted news outlet has the most unbiased reporting, in your view? Similarly, which liberal-slanted news outlet has the most unbiased reporting, in your view? How about news outlets which might support some anarchist/green/fringe party, but through their unorthodox political views are able to give an even-handed coverage of the two major political parties in the US?

Ideally, you'll be picking a conservative news outlet if you consider yourself to be a liberal, and a liberal news outlet if you consider yourself to be a conservative... but just use your judgment.

I'm going to assume that no one is going to suggest any TV news sources, since I think it can be universally agreed upon that TV news has devolved into pure entertainment. So, that leaves us with radio (maybe?), blogs, e-papers, magazines, internet forums, etc.

Also, by "unbiased", I ideally mean a news report which gives us the details of an incident -- say, an anti-abortion rally -- and mentions only the facts. Where it took place, what prompted it (according to one of the protesters, not the reporter), and then methods for the reader to investigate the issue further on their own, such as listing the URL of the group protesting and the URL of a group opposed to the protesters. There would, IMO, be very few quotes from the protesters (or those opposed to them), as it's too easy to -- consciously or not -- frame quotes with wording that push your own opinion. e.g., it's really easy to make Fred Phelps (god hates fags guy) look like a lunatic, and doing so would probably be popular, since the majority of the public doesn't like the guy. However, a news reporter would be as unbiased as possible in their coverage of any Phelps events, since their job is to tell you what's happening in the world... not to interpret it for you.

 

[sciwizam]

News Hour?

 

[Appledrop]

Alex Jones on the GCN Radio Network

 

[miketheidiot]

wsj/nyt imo

 

[XZeroII]

There is no such thing. It's human nature.

 

[Craig234]

I think this is a duplicate thread? But I'd like to offer some good 'conservative' news sources, it's awkward to say 'there aren't any'. But there sort of aren't.

Part of it is the simple issue that the definition of 'conservative news seems to have little to say now - are we supposed to hop on board with 'de-regulation of the financial markets is good' and 'the Neocon foreign policy is right'? The modern 'conservative' is at odds with his won group's recent history - is Bush 41 not a 'conservative' for not having gone into Iraq in the first Gulf War? That policy is now the 'liberal' one. Are we supposed to support the death squads, Iran-Contra and deficits of Reagan?

There are however more and less bad conservative news sources. Sources like 'Redstate' and 'Freerepublic' are especially rotten.

Would the WSJ *News*, not editorial, section count as conservative news? If so, the news section is credible. The editorial section is a bad joke.

Does Andrew Sullivan count as conservative, when he calls himself conservative but has done a lot of Bush bashing? He seems reasonable, even if I disagree with much he says.

Sadly, the 'conservative' media, like the movement, has largely been corrupted.

A one commentary recently put it, the conservative political movement chose to get close to the corporatist interests, especially with the election of Bush 43, and it was inevitable that the corporatists would change the politicians, rather than the politicians influincing the corporatists, and that's what happened as the corporatist views took power.

So, 'balance' is not some right-wing, some left-wing, because one side is much less accurate. I wish that were not the case, but that's my opinion.

I've looked long for something better - Fox, National Review, many web sites (there are a few), newspapers, national and local right-wing radio. It's a lot of bad outlets.

Disagree? Show me the right-wing media source that covered the 'Al Gore was smeared by lies in 2000' story, and we'll talk.

I can show you a long list of 'Obama flip-flopped on illegal wiretapping' stories on the left.

 

[MovingTarget]

NPR? Reuters/AP/BBC?

 

[lightstar]

McClatchy http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

 

[IronWing]

P&N. Network reporters don't have folks standing next to them screaming "That's BS!" when it is.

 

[cubby1223]

South Park

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is no such thing. It's human nature.

Pretty much, you may find ones that are less bias than others, but the writer will likely show some bias.

 

[Andrew111]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
South Park

Haha, southpark does tend to make fun of everybody to prove a point I found it hilarious that the dude that played Chef(Isaac Hayes) was fine when Southpark made fun of Jews, the Catholic Church, etc. but when they rolled out an episode about Scientology he quit because he was a member.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Money
Alex Jones on the GCN Radio Network

Are you being serious?

I've never considered him as a source of news, but I've never actually listened to him either.

 

[blackangst1]

Kind of a repost?

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I've looked long for something better - Fox, National Review, many web sites (there are a few), newspapers, national and local right-wing radio. It's a lot of bad outlets.

Disagree? Show me the right-wing media source that covered the 'Al Gore was smeared by lies in 2000' story, and we'll talk.

I can show you a long list of 'Obama flip-flopped on illegal wiretapping' stories on the left.

Any story titled "X was smeared" is inherently biased, though. Why should a reporter ever be interpreting the details of an event for the reader? A reporter should be reporting, not determining what actions constitute a smear vs. a retort vs. a lovers quarrel. Similarly, why would a news outlet report that Obama "flip-flopped" on illegal wiretapping? Why not just report the facts of what Obama has actually said/done, and let the reader decide? If you want someone to hold your hand and explain to you how his actions can be interpreted, turn to the editorial section.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: Craig234
I've looked long for something better - Fox, National Review, many web sites (there are a few), newspapers, national and local right-wing radio. It's a lot of bad outlets.

Disagree? Show me the right-wing media source that covered the 'Al Gore was smeared by lies in 2000' story, and we'll talk.

I can show you a long list of 'Obama flip-flopped on illegal wiretapping' stories on the left.

Any story titled "X was smeared" is inherently biased, though. Why should a reporter ever be interpreting the details of an event for the reader? A reporter should be reporting, not determining what actions constitute a smear vs. a retort vs. a lovers quarrel. Similarly, why would a news outlet report that Obama "flip-flopped" on illegal wiretapping? Why not just report the facts of what Obama has actually said/done, and let the reader decide? If you want someone to hold your hand and explain to you how his actions can be interpreted, turn to the editorial section.

Putting the debate you raise to the side, change my statement to say "Show me the right-wing media source that reported the pattern of false attacks in the 2000 election."

We could get into the topic you raise, and I could explain how 'just facts' can be more biased than editorial comments, but it's easier and more relevant to say the above.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The most reliable non partisan news sources in the world are in order:

The Onion

Weekly World News

Just pure unadulterated facts

 

[MotF Bane]

Fox News. Fair and balanced.

/thread

 

[sandorski]

"News" is non-Partisan. Editorials are another matter.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"News" is non-Partisan. Editorials are another matter.

That's not necessarily correct. Bias manifests in the selection of news stories, when selecting people to interview, the tone and coded language used when reporting, and probably other ways that do not immediately come to mind.

The Natalee Holloway case was tragic, but there are millions of stories of young women kidnapped and possibly murdered. Her story was chosen from the rest because of her appearance, race and social class. There is a segment on a late-night talk show where people on the streets of New York are interviewed about current events. For the sake of entertainment, and to convey a message (Americans are ignorant), the interviews almost always are of people saying stupid things. We cannot know how many people were interviewed before an idiot was found. It could be fifty, or it could have been on the first try. When MSNBC covers the Tea Parties, they do so jokingly and dismissively. I'll be honest, the Tea Parties are funny to me, but I expect a news provider to take them seriously and provide a reasonably fair report of them. Still, I do not think that MSNBC reporters said anything incorrect or slanderous.

You can present the facts while maintaining a very strong bias.

 

[StinkyPinky]

The BBC used to be, but not anymore.

 

[Lemon law]

I will give the odd answer and to a certain extent the sanorski answer.

And the answer, drum toll please-------------you the reader can train yourself to be unbiased even if the reporting source is biased.

Reading multiple viewpoints always helps, there is the news in form of this event happened, but the why is where the editorializing starts.
Most of the time the editorial writer is flat out FOS, making a somewhat dubious hypothesis lacking anything but a few anecdotal incidents.
Always play the devils advocate, unless it meets all the logic tests, conclude that the case is not made.

And words have color, when the writer use words to demonize before the case is made, you know the writers goal is to fool you.

Think of the scientific method, if a hypothesis does not describe other related events it predicts, its reject hypothesis as unsound.

 

[SigArms08]

And still no mention of Rush Limbaugh?!? :laugh:

 

[Triumph]

I think the country in general would be smarter if we simply got rid of cable TV. The reason for pointless "news" like the above mentioned Natalie Holloway tale is because there is simply too much coverage time. They fill the dead air time with "breaking news" in the case of missing white girl. Everything is sensationalized, the graphics are overproduced, you have explosions and holograms and giant LCD maps of Somalia for no reason, the screen is inundated with scrolling text on the bottom, stocks on the lower left, weather on the lower right, commentary on the left, traffic on the top, while some talking heads are conducting something described as a debate but more aptly called a shouting match, somewhere in there amongst all the widgets and gadgets on the screen. This is why I listen to NPR. It has bias, mainly in the types of news stories that they choose to cover. But for the sole fact alone, that I don't have to destroy my retinas and my auditory nerves just to know what is going on in the world, I appreciate it for that.

MEGA NEWS!!!!

 

[IamDavid]

I used to think Ted Koppel on Nightline. now no one.. I like foxnews though.