Unbiased news sources? Do they exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Not all positions are equally supported by facts, ...

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that. ...

I agree with your point that journalists should dig up the facts on both sides. But if they know that one side is just plain wrong, they ought to say that and not act as though "balanced" means treating lies and the truth with equal respect just because they want to look like they are being "fair" to the two sides.

[Anonymous]

Bla bla bla....freedom is the foundation of civic morality. Government is inherently dangerous and wasteful. Any news that reports these facts is outstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bla bla bla....freedom is the foundation of civic morality. Government is inherently dangerous and wasteful. Any news that reports these facts is outstanding.

I believe you meant to say "religion" there.

Government is great. Please, let there be more government.

If you don't like government, pp, there are a few other countries that might appeal to you. I suggest you start in Somalia. I'll happily pay your freight.

[Anonymous]

I read criticisms that the mainstream media "ignored" the story, and then when I provided hundreds of links, the critic moved the goalposts and sniffed at how X, Y, and Z newspapers didn't put the coverage of the long lines on....."
>>>>>>>>>

This is SO true! I had a conversation with a conservative recently: "MSNBC refused to cover Fast and Furious!". "Really?" I said. "I will be you one hundred dollars that I can google msnbc+ fast and furious or holder and find plenty of hits.". "Well, they didn't give it as MUCH coverage as they should have, as SOON as they should have, (and basically, conclude that Holder and/or Obama were guilty until proven otherwise).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bla bla bla....freedom is the foundation of civic morality. Government is inherently dangerous and wasteful. Any news that reports these facts is outstanding.

That's not news. That's political philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bla bla bla....freedom is the foundation of civic morality. Government is inherently dangerous and wasteful. Any news that reports these facts is outstanding.

That's not news. That's political philosophy.

It's fact. Facts are news to smart people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bla bla bla....freedom is the foundation of civic morality. Government is inherently dangerous and wasteful. Any news that reports these facts is outstanding.

That's not news. That's political philosophy.

It's fact. Facts are news to smart people.

This just in: awesome pyramids discovered in egypt. water expands when frozen. Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

--Facts which are not news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is unbiased. Look at any news article from a credible source, and you'll find even the tiniest word - perhaps only 3 letters long - that can change the tone of the piece in a hot second.

Well balanced means
- both sides are presented with the same amount of material
- with the same quality of sources
- absent of any words that can persuade a reader to take one side over the other

virtually impossible

I don't think that's a good definition of unbiased. Not all positions are equally supported by facts, and giving equal time regardless of the evidence is part of the problem with news. If we had to give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat vs. round, all for the sake of "balance", then the press has failed to achieve its most basic goal: to inform. Instead, it has given fifty percent of its time to misinformation.

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that.

Take Holmes's massacre, for example. It was a tragedy that got quite a bit of press. So the focus was on the actual incident. We know very little about his background and what perhaps pushed him over the edge. So in this case, you'd need a reporter comfortable with some sort of psychological analysis. There are specialists out there who find a niche. However, b/c there's no quality control (I blame the internet.), we are used to quick information we can absorb while eating our egg McMuffin on the way to work.

So I have to disagree with you. It's the lazy reporter who can't get both sides - or the lazy news source who won't encourage multiple reporters to gather information from all sides.

Our society has embraced simplistic reporting, and as a result, no one ever fully gets the big picture. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't get your point at all. I have seen DOZENS of articles discussing his psychological condition. I don't know how you have possibly missed it.

Did they delve into family patterns? What was he like as a kid? into who saw early signs yet didn't do anything to help? into what sort of interventions were in place for him? How did he suddenly become an expert on weapons? What groups may have influenced him?

tons of info NOT addressed

He was a loner. He was quiet. blah blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... Not all positions are equally supported by facts, ...

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that. ...

I agree with your point that journalists should dig up the facts on both sides. But if they know that one side is just plain wrong, they ought to say that and not act as though "balanced" means treating lies and the truth with equal respect just because they want to look like they are being "fair" to the two sides.

Agreed. It's the "On the other hand, Mr. Hitler claims...." problem. Simply providing both sides can be a disservice when one side is demonstrably false.

[Anonymous]

The Economist isn't unbiased, but it's probably the most carefully researched actually journalism out there anymore. Financial Times is pretty good, as is BBC.

NYT and Wall Street Journal are absolute jokes at this point. NYT jumped the shark when it started shilling itself for online $ and essentially began to sensationalize its articles for more subscribers and buzz and WSJ is, of course, just another mouthpiece for Rupert Murdock at this point. Sad that American journalism is so pathetic at this point.

[Anonymous]

edit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is unbiased. Look at any news article from a credible source, and you'll find even the tiniest word - perhaps only 3 letters long - that can change the tone of the piece in a hot second.

Well balanced means
- both sides are presented with the same amount of material
- with the same quality of sources
- absent of any words that can persuade a reader to take one side over the other

virtually impossible

I don't think that's a good definition of unbiased. Not all positions are equally supported by facts, and giving equal time regardless of the evidence is part of the problem with news. If we had to give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat vs. round, all for the sake of "balance", then the press has failed to achieve its most basic goal: to inform. Instead, it has given fifty percent of its time to misinformation.

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that.

Take Holmes's massacre, for example. It was a tragedy that got quite a bit of press. So the focus was on the actual incident. We know very little about his background and what perhaps pushed him over the edge. So in this case, you'd need a reporter comfortable with some sort of psychological analysis. There are specialists out there who find a niche. However, b/c there's no quality control (I blame the internet.), we are used to quick information we can absorb while eating our egg McMuffin on the way to work.

So I have to disagree with you. It's the lazy reporter who can't get both sides - or the lazy news source who won't encourage multiple reporters to gather information from all sides.

Our society has embraced simplistic reporting, and as a result, no one ever fully gets the big picture. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't get your point at all. I have seen DOZENS of articles discussing his psychological condition. I don't know how you have possibly missed it.

Did they delve into family patterns? What was he like as a kid? who saw early signs yet didn't do anything to help? what sort of interventions were in place for him? How did he suddenly become an expert on weapons? What groups may have influenced him?

tons of info NOT addressed

He was a loner. He was quiet. blah blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is unbiased. Look at any news article from a credible source, and you'll find even the tiniest word - perhaps only 3 letters long - that can change the tone of the piece in a hot second.

Well balanced means
- both sides are presented with the same amount of material
- with the same quality of sources
- absent of any words that can persuade a reader to take one side over the other

virtually impossible

I don't think that's a good definition of unbiased. Not all positions are equally supported by facts, and giving equal time regardless of the evidence is part of the problem with news. If we had to give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat vs. round, all for the sake of "balance", then the press has failed to achieve its most basic goal: to inform. Instead, it has given fifty percent of its time to misinformation.

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that.

Take Holmes's massacre, for example. It was a tragedy that got quite a bit of press. So the focus was on the actual incident. We know very little about his background and what perhaps pushed him over the edge. So in this case, you'd need a reporter comfortable with some sort of psychological analysis. There are specialists out there who find a niche. However, b/c there's no quality control (I blame the internet.), we are used to quick information we can absorb while eating our egg McMuffin on the way to work.

So I have to disagree with you. It's the lazy reporter who can't get both sides - or the lazy news source who won't encourage multiple reporters to gather information from all sides.

Our society has embraced simplistic reporting, and as a result, no one ever fully gets the big picture. It's a vicious cycle.

You're suggesting that there should have been an article saying, "Holmes carried out one of the deadliest shootings in history, killing dozens of innocent people and injuring many more. On the other hand, Holmes was a straight-A student who usually had a good reason for anything he did. Although his reasons for carrying out the attack are not clear, this reporter will not stop searching until we get the true balanced story on this tragedy--a tragedy for both sides."

Another example: "Jerry Sandusky was convicted today of 49 counts of sexual abuse of minors that he committed over 8 years, using his charity and position in Penn State football to lure children into circumstances where he took advantage of them. On the other hand, Sandusky is well known for his outstanding football coaching and his charity work through the Second Mile, a program that has helped many struggling children over the years. Although his crimes are horrendous, they weigh in the balance against Mr. Sandusky's positive traits, which cannot be discounted."

Indeed, there are two sides to every story.

[Anonymous]

11:29, +1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:edit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is unbiased. Look at any news article from a credible source, and you'll find even the tiniest word - perhaps only 3 letters long - that can change the tone of the piece in a hot second.

Well balanced means
- both sides are presented with the same amount of material
- with the same quality of sources
- absent of any words that can persuade a reader to take one side over the other

virtually impossible

I don't think that's a good definition of unbiased. Not all positions are equally supported by facts, and giving equal time regardless of the evidence is part of the problem with news. If we had to give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat vs. round, all for the sake of "balance", then the press has failed to achieve its most basic goal: to inform. Instead, it has given fifty percent of its time to misinformation.

Yes, they are. But you need solid investigative reporting to accomplish that.

Take Holmes's massacre, for example. It was a tragedy that got quite a bit of press. So the focus was on the actual incident. We know very little about his background and what perhaps pushed him over the edge. So in this case, you'd need a reporter comfortable with some sort of psychological analysis. There are specialists out there who find a niche. However, b/c there's no quality control (I blame the internet.), we are used to quick information we can absorb while eating our egg McMuffin on the way to work.

So I have to disagree with you. It's the lazy reporter who can't get both sides - or the lazy news source who won't encourage multiple reporters to gather information from all sides.

Our society has embraced simplistic reporting, and as a result, no one ever fully gets the big picture. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't get your point at all. I have seen DOZENS of articles discussing his psychological condition. I don't know how you have possibly missed it.

Did they delve into family patterns? What was he like as a kid? who saw early signs yet didn't do anything to help? what sort of interventions were in place for him? How did he suddenly become an expert on weapons? What groups may have influenced him?

tons of info NOT addressed

He was a loner. He was quiet. blah blah blah

1. Lots of stories about him as a kid. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57477097/colo-suspect-james-holmes-smart-but-quiet-teachers-and-neighbors-say/\
2. The parent angle: http://www.businessinsider.com/expert-dont-blame-james-holmes-parents-for-his-alleged-shooting-spree-2012-7
3. Early signs angle: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/23/james-holmes-gave-no-indication-of-violent-delusions/
4. His failed attempt at joining a gun club: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/james-holmes-gun-club-membership_n_1693376.html

Come on! This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Anonymous]

Bbc is good. The only news source in the country that I like
Russia today is biased, but provides a fresh perspective.
Al jazeera gives the news that american press is afraid of