Where can I find unbiased news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

I am as liberal as it gets but these are NOT unbiased outside of the BBC, sort of. The WaPo is basically a supermarket tabloid now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

I am as liberal as it gets but these are NOT unbiased outside of the BBC, sort of. The WaPo is basically a supermarket tabloid now

Sorry, I would add WSJ is not as liberal. But NYT, WaPO, NPR? Are laughably so - and I AM a liberal and these are 2/3 of my main sources!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

The WaPo is basically a supermarket tabloid now

All news sources are now.

[Anonymous]

I wish all posters to this thread began with “I am a registered XYZ.” Then nobody would be surprised by subsequent efforts to claims that WaPo or Fox are unbiased. The data doesn’t lie, so have a look at party registrations and party donations by major figures and staff at media organizations and the patterns are clear. The data does lie and public trust is mainstream media is at an all time low. Only way is to read all sides and have a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Anonymous]

BBC far and away is the best. Sadly, with the NYT and WSJ the opinion pages have crept into the front page. I do enjoy the PBS Newshour but they have a bias. I avoid Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish all posters to this thread began with “I am a registered XYZ.” Then nobody would be surprised by subsequent efforts to claims that WaPo or Fox are unbiased. The data doesn’t lie, so have a look at party registrations and party donations by major figures and staff at media organizations and the patterns are clear. The data does lie and public trust is mainstream media is at an all time low. Only way is to read all sides and have a healthy dose of skepticism.

People can be factual even if they have their own opinions on what the facts mean, or if they’re registered to one political party or another, or even if they donate to politicians. Reporting facts isn’t mutually exclusive with having opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

TLDR, but you are obviously indoctrinated.

"It's easier to fool someone, than to make them see they have been fooled."

[Anonymous]

https://babylonbee.com/news/washington-post-gives-entire-staff-day-off-to-mourn-loss-of-hamas-leader

[Anonymous]

Did someone actually link to Babylon Bee? As if we needed any more proof that conservatives have no sense of humor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol ok, champ.

MAGA is an authoritarian movement, which is a statement that can be readily backed up by *primary* (statements of their leaders).

Their policy positions place them to the far right, near fascist, end of the spectrum. Their tactics and rhetoric resemble closely the fascist movements of the past - including, but not limited to, the American Nazi Party. This again can be substantiated by comparing primary sources and seeing the similarities.

Anyone who watched the events live on January 6 can provide primary source material to substantiate that it was a MAGA aligned mob attacking police, attempting to reach elected officials, with the stated purpose of overturning an election.

Anyone who checks the court filings can easily say that judge after judge said the Trump campaign court filings were filled with lies created to try to subvert the elections.

This is objective analysis, you simply don’t like it.

TLDR, but you are obviously indoctrinated.

"It's easier to fool someone, than to make them see they have been fooled."

^^Obvious troll trying to stir the pot before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Now we know you’re a troll. No one would seriously think that fcker Tucker Carlson is “telling the truth”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Laughing at how stupid you are.

It’s pretty pathetic, actually.

[Anonymous]

If you read several sources you can usually get the whole story.

[Anonymous]

WSJ is leftist. The opinion section is conservative.