Where can I find unbiased news?

[Anonymous]

If an event is especially politicized, it also helps to glance at leading news services from other countries, because they're less likely to be embroiled in our red vs blue battle so they might report some things more honestly than you'll see from any news service here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Gossip.
Any place that says it is "news" has a political agenda now.

Rumors, whether true or false, are often revealing.

[Anonymous]

I would encourage you to also consider reading the Guardian Newspaper -- it is one of the last newspapers still with reporters that is not owned by a billionaire. Also it has a great deal of breadth in terms of topics, regions and diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the Washington Post.

And a lot of npr!! I listen to npr all the time, but some of the reporters are incredibly biased. I can barely listen to The Daily - so many dramatic pauses, horrible sound effects and ridiculous one sided questions. Michael Barbara is single handedly turning me back to the Republican Party.

I do listen to BBC and Al Jazeera.

I'm not a fan of Barbaro either, but fwiw, he's with the NY Times.

Also it’s not news. It’s firmly in the entertainment/opinion segment.

[Anonymous]

Fox News - fair and balanced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.

If you think that’s bad, it’s your opinion.

And I specifically indicated “conservative” is what MAGA identifies as, but calling them conservative is factually inaccurate because MAGA is not an inherently conservative movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage you to also consider reading the Guardian Newspaper -- it is one of the last newspapers still with reporters that is not owned by a billionaire. Also it has a great deal of breadth in terms of topics, regions and diversity.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fox News - fair and balanced

Not anymore. That's why they forced Tucker out.
But the jokes on them, Tucker now gets 20 times more viewers (100 million+ viewers each day now, compared to 4 million on Fox) now that he can speak the truth and not be censored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether you are liberal or conservation, Democrat or Republican, many of us are living in an echo chamber of what we already believe. So the person who listens to Fox and believes in conservative topics is going to think Fox is unbiased. Same, re: a liberal listening to something like CBS and thinking they are unbiased. I truly don't think there are any unbiased news agencies any more. Maybe AP and The Economist, because they mostly are just posting information.

What I have done (and it is still hard to get to the truth of most any topic) is get my information for as many outlets as possible to get all sides. I especially think it's important to get the opposite POV to what I believe, so I can understand better. But I will add that this is a terrible way to deal with all of this. I am hoping that the rhetoric and flame throwing will settle down once the election is over. Though I suspect it will only get worse since basically 50% of the population is going to be disappointed one way or the other.

Exactly this. Most people live in a news echo chamber. No, there really isn’t a completely unbiased source. You need to read multiple sources daily to have a descent picture.

Also, I can tell you that many MAGA people don’t even like Fox News anymore— they go for even more right-winged sources online.

[Anonymous]

People often dislike news outlets that don’t tell them what they want to hear. Fox News was invented because conservatives didn’t like reality and needed an alternative narrative.

There isn’t much out there that doesn’t lean one way or the other. The BBC is ok although much weakened by years of Tory government. It is actually too neutral on some topics for some people’s taste, so you will get disagreement from those who don’t appreciate them airing certain realities.

Al Jazeera may be the best for actual in-depth journalism, but they suffer under the weight of their name and where they are located. Euro News is very good, quite dry but pretty neutral. I don’t know of any good news outlets in the US other than AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

And take the MAGA leadership statements at face value instead of concocting alternate facts about what they “really meant”.

Let me guess, to you, Jan 6 were tourists visiting the Capitol and now they’re political prisoners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically when a “conservative” (read: MAGA) says news has a liberal bias, they mean the news isn’t being told (or not told) from the perspective of MAGA. So to them, unless it is MAGA aligned it is biased. This includes both unbiased/accurate/factual news and also liberally biased news (MSNBC, now CNN, and NYT editorial pages).

So MAGA will say Fox News is unbiased (as some posters here do).

But what they mean, for example, is Fox News told the MAGA truth on things like the “stolen “ 2020 election. They’re so deluded that they think that is the truth and if you report anything other than that truth then your biased.

So, when the AP writes a wire story about Trump lying (which is factual) and Rachel Maddow goes on a talking heads tirade and editorializes, they say it’s the same thing.

It is factually accurate to call MAGA an authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement. Those are factual descriptions based on the public statements and actions of the movement’s leaders. This belongs in unbiased reporting - and in fact, simply calling the movement “conservative” is factually inaccurate and biased.

On the other hand, because MAGA opposes abortion, it is not factual to say “MAGA is waging a war on women”. That is an opinion and is subjective and biased.

I think the real problem here is the declining quality of education that didn’t get “fact/opinion” and “objective/subjective” drills repeated enough for students that they could take that critical analysis with them into adulthood.

As an educational post as you seem to be advocating, do you see here how you are showing your bias? Everything is through the lens of conservative = MAGA = bad. Trying doing the same experiment with a liberal, far-leaning left POV and see what you get. My point is it not just the far right doing this. It is far left, as well. There are many of us who have traditionally voted Democrat, and suddenly finding ourselves in a world ruled by social media nut cases on both sides. At this point, if feels very much like Pick Your Poison.

No, I simply said MAGA = authoritarian, nativist, populist, xenophobic, pseudo-fascist movement.

That is a factual description of the movement.
.

Fascinating that you really believe that. Shows how programming and propaganda can work on the susceptible.

Uh. No. I’ve studied history and political science for my career.

You confuse indoctrination with education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fox News - fair and balanced

You forgot the /s