Where can I find unbiased news?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Does it even exist anymore? I’m not sure if it ever really did, but at least in the past there was more of an effort to try. |
Anonymous
| Of course it exists. The WSJ, WaPo, NYT, BBC, NPR. In spite of rightwing fantasies about mainstream media being "leftist," all these publications publish the news. Stay away from the editorial pages, and you are getting...news. |
Anonymous
| Reuters, AP |
Anonymous
| Of course it exists. The WSJ, WaPo, NYT, BBC, NPR. In spite of rightwing fantasies about mainstream media being "leftist," all these publications publish the news. Stay away from the editorial pages, and you are getting...news. |
Anonymous
| Not the Washington Post. |
Anonymous
|
The sources listed above provide news. The key is to also analyze and understand the facts in the article, but also the lens from which the author is taking.
Read an article on same topic in the WSJ and WaPo to get two views on same topic. The problem is Americans can’t analyze anything. They just believe the propaganda. |
Anonymous
|
Your best bet is to read from a wide variety of sources. I mostly get my news from an aggregate source, google, and go to cnn but if I want to read the other side then I will read fox.
I do not rely on one source. |
Anonymous
Precisely this. Right wingers created a right-wing media echo chamber because they confused a lack of conformity by legacy media with their fringe ideas and conspiracy theories as being “bias.” You can and should reject that premise. It’s a false equivalency to say because these right-wing outlets, none of which follow basic tenets of journalism as established by trade organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists, it follows that everything else is “left.” It’s not binary like that. Right wing media and their obsessions are largely make-believe. It is oriented to creating and stoking outrage rather than reporting news, which may or may not be outrageous. That’s why you get breathless coverage of things the vast majority of people don’t care about, like immigration caravans and prisoners getting taxpayer funded sex change operations. It’s rare that they report news in good faith. The legacy media by and large follows standards set in place 100 years ago. They use multiple sources, try to report fairly (which if anything leads to complaints about both-sides are saying, even when one side is clearly lying or invalid). And it is typically trying its best to avoid bias, rather than leading with it the way the right wing media does. It’s imperfect but it doesn’t have an agenda. |
Anonymous
|
Here
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news There is also a chart showing how far sources lean. I usually look at foxnews, nytimes and bbc and then call it a day. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart |
Anonymous
| I just read the titles of threads on DCUM recent posts. From that I can get the gist of what’s going on in the world |
Anonymous
This is totally not true. BBC might be a little better, but all others are biased and misleading, but they claim they are not biased and reporting 'news'. They are even worse than Fox, because when people watch or read Fox, people know right away that they are biased somehow and know how to react accordingly. Those you mentioned are worse since they are PURPOSELY misleading but in a subtle way. After reading my post, go back to compare the reports on the same issue between Fox and all those you listed, you will find out they are biased, but it is hard for people to realize it. It is very sad that there are no unbiased news outlets in the US. And most of the news outlets are not honest. Fox is honest, but it is unfortunately biased. |
Anonymous
+1 same. Belive it or not foxnews is more sane and fair than cnn, nbc, and the others. Give it a try. |
Anonymous
|
Just skim the headlines and the photos. You can do your own tally. Check off the negative/positive headlines for a particular political leaning and do the same with photos- flattering vs unflattering.
|
Anonymous
I generally agree and think there are even more than listed here. But, I think the NYT has definitely slipped and has a clear liberal bias in how and what they cover in their news sections. Washington Post can come close to this, but inconsistent. Much of their coverage is very middle of the road/unskewed. But often their editorial choices of what they cover/don’t cover appear politically/ideologically motivated. NPR’s news and editorializing has gotten pretty blurry in the last 5 years. I would add: FT Economist The wire services I also think there’s value in the pubs that have blantantly one-sided content that are meant to inform/explain a perspective, or make a cohesive argument from a particular ideology, but arent trying to shroud their bias as “news” and are reasonably intellectual. I’m thinking of the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, the Spectator, occasionally the New Republic (less so in recent years). |