What news out,ets are considered unbiased, particularly curious to hear from MAGA
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Different poster here. That person sounds a lot like me. I used to be liberal but I think I'm more mainline Democrat. Who progressives would view as either a moderate on a good day or a DINO on another. That's the reality of politics today. Extremes on both sides demand political purity and most can't give it. So we get vilified. |
Anonymous
|
AP and BBC are best. Then NYT, especially for long form. WaPo only for local and some federal government employee news. I’ll consider National Review and WSJ with an open mind.
Moderate Dem. |
Anonymous
Oh— and never, ever, ever, social media. Not X, Bluesky, Facebook, IG… good for individual takes. But not for factual news. Although the comments section in the NYT can be interesting. WaPo destroyed theirs with the AI crap. |
Anonymous
By "vetted" you mean those who agree with your POV? Because in real life educated people tend to disagree with one another and "science is never settled".. There were very many educated accomplished academics who spoke against Covid measures and were silenced, I suppose you have dismissed them as "unvetted" ? |
Anonymous
|
Would love to share an example of bias from this morning's news. I'm a moderate who likes to watch CBS in the morning (I also alternate between Morning Joe and Fox and Friends to see how cable is covering.)
Tday, I was listening to Ed O'Keefe lay out how Americans are responding to the Zelenskyy meeting. How his script was written was inherently biased against Trump regarding a weekend survey of voters. "Just over half of Americans support how the is responding in Ukraine." If it had been Kamala, I can promise you it would have been written "A majority of Americans now support..." Its a small but really meaningful difference. After Trump won, I started thinking more about how coverage has impacted my own views. And Ive gotta say -- the more I listen, the more I feel manipulated by -- yes -- the mainstream media. I expect less bias from the major networks, and I think their attempts to sway viewers towards their preferred narrative is backfiring. |
Anonymous
To be clear, I do not trust MJ whatsoever. But I also do not trust NYT, BBC, etc. I view them as equally untrustworthy to MJ. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
No, it’s not. “Moderate” does not mean adopting the excesses of the extreme left as “fact.” It means asking hard questions and not blindly accepting positions. |
Anonymous
|
The best thing to do is get down to the level of the author of an article and see what articles they have previously written. Pretty easy to click on their name and see what they've written.
By that, you can see where their loyalties are. News outlets often lie by omission. They just don't carry whole news articles hoping it will go away if their readers don't know about it. |
Anonymous
|
You also need to see what other media organizations are saying. Here is an example:
Recently the Telegraph published an article about alleged BBC bias on Israel/Gaza coverage (link below). Now, the Telegraph definitely has its own obvious biases, and I am not at all saying they are not biased and the BBC is. These kinds of discussions do not mean you accept that the BBC is biased. You just read articles understanding that they might be. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/23/evidence-of-bbc-bias-is-overwhelming/ Media companies do cover each other, and it is a useful data point to see how they do it. Even if you reject every point made, the fact that another opinion exists is worth considering. |
Anonymous
Sorry to disappoint you, but I follow both liberal and conservatives as long as they have a legit CV of experience and expertise and can back their claims with facts, legit sources and reason. It is harder to find conservatives doing this right now though (and that’s backed with data), so I generally find them at The Bulwark, The Atlantic, and via Tom Nichols. Cue RWNJ screeching that The Atlantic isn’t conservative “enough” and bashing a War College professor as a “lib” or some other dumb criticism. |
Anonymous
That chart is beyond silly and not legitimate at all. It's completely influenced by money. |
Anonymous
Could not have said it better myself. I noticed this over 30 years ago in reporting in general. It has only gotten worse since then. 30 years ago, the news mostly was just 30 min in the evening on various channels and newspapers. It didn't politicize EVERYTHING like they do now. People in general are tired of everything being politicized, and that is also a big part of why the media in general is not trusted by anyone anymore, but for a small % of the devout rich political elite. |
Anonymous
Spot on. I think it is telling that there are posters here on DCUM who apparently fully believe there are absolutely trustworthy news sources. That just means that they are members of the devout rich political elite that control the general media narrative. Once you see how the media treats a topic where you have deep professional expertise, you cannot believe in the concept of true media neutrality any more. |
Anonymous