Where can I find unbiased news?

[Anonymous]

I read 1440 daily - they try to be unbiased

https://join1440.com/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=nl_share_start&utm_campaign=intro-share&share=true

[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."

Thank you for demonstrating my points so thoroughly.

Our education system has failed. The education it provided ended up not to be resilient at all when it actually mattered.

Attention spans are too short.

And people no longer understand and cannot recognize simple concepts like primary vs secondary sources, objective vs subjective, fact vs opinion.

If someone doesn’t like what they’re told or runs counter to their world view, they attack the messenger. They can’t handle the cognitive dissonance and look for patterns to support a claim of bias.

[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.

You’re joking right? The Nazi party is about racism and white nationalism. Meanwhile Trump and MAGA is making huge inroads with black and Latino voters. Are you even paying attention?

[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.

Seriously? NPR and WaPo ??

You are making a joke, right?

I challenge you right now. Go the front pages of NPR and WaPo, read the headlines and articles, and show me the bias.

I bet you can't, but I'll check back in to see.

[Anonymous]

I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

[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.

Seriously? NPR and WaPo ??

You are making a joke, right?

I challenge you right now. Go the front pages of NPR and WaPo, read the headlines and articles, and show me the bias.

I bet you can't, but I'll check back in to see.

NP here.
Both of those outlets hate Trump and hate the modern Republicans party.
I do to… but this media bias is not hidden by any stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

Thank you for this.
What is your job? Sounds cool.

[Anonymous]

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.

lol. No.

[Anonymous]

You need to curate your sources on X with who you follow so you can amalgamate a number of sources you feel comfortable with and also so you can compare stories across outlets. That's the best way I've found to get a comprehensive picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

It seems you’ve not tuned into CNN or read NYT recently. Or maybe just explain why they were guns blazing to force Biden out but turn a blind eye on the guy who wants to deport, imprison and/or shoot his personal enemies, immigrants (some legal), impose widespread tariffs, shut down DOE & FEMA, etc. Not to mention his repeated stories of shark attacks or electrocution by boat battery, his friends in Russia & North Korea and Hannibal, his repeated Logan Act violations, his toxic rhetoric and name-calling, his near incessant mis/dis/mal information and statements anytime he talks, etc. That’s not even mentioning his numerous serious legal issues and obvious intention to continue to refuse void legal votes and to abide by election results. CNN and NYT are unbothered to report these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

It seems you’ve not tuned into CNN or read NYT recently. Or maybe just explain why they were guns blazing to force Biden out but turn a blind eye on the guy who wants to deport, imprison and/or shoot his personal enemies, immigrants (some legal), impose widespread tariffs, shut down DOE & FEMA, etc. Not to mention his repeated stories of shark attacks or electrocution by boat battery, his friends in Russia & North Korea and Hannibal, his repeated Logan Act violations, his toxic rhetoric and name-calling, his near incessant mis/dis/mal information and statements anytime he talks, etc. That’s not even mentioning his numerous serious legal issues and obvious intention to continue to refuse void legal votes and to abide by election results. CNN and NYT are unbothered to report these.

I have no idea what version of CNN and the NYT you’re looking at, but they report this stuff all the time. They don’t always report every breathless utterance out of his mouth but they pound on the Republican candidate all the time.

[Anonymous]

Christian Science Monitor and PBS are good sources. I also like Al Jazeera, but it does lean left regarding US politics.

[Anonymous]

You sound like an uniformed victim OP Your pre-order conceived opinions will prevent you from learning.

[Anonymous]

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.

Left wing extremists all of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I analyze media for a living and there are some issues with most US media. The most reliable and fact -checked of the widely available media is the NYT. The Post is fact checked, but they can be a bit more selective on how they present those facts. CNN is also way more biased than it used to be.

Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to incite fear. They keep certain themes front and center that are little more than rumors and they put nothing into any kind of perspective. The best example I have ever seen was last year when Republicans were still having debates. There was one where Chris Christie called out Trump hard. I saw that live. So I went over to Fox to see how they covered those remarks. First, I had to scroll way down on the main page to find a mention that the debate happened. Then, not only did Fox not cover Christie’s remarks, they did not even mention him by name as being present. They listed all the other participants. The picture of the debate participants had been cropped in such a way to cut him out. So if you were a Fox viewer, you would not have had access to the information that might give you context. CNN and MSNBC certainly were somewhat hysterical in the coverage of what the Republican candidates said, but they didn’t cut out the existence of the participants. NYT was a bit more boring and simply fact checked the statements and called BS.

Most people leave their TVs on a station of choice. During a crisis, make a conscious decision to spend half an hour on a variety of networks and see what is presented to you. It’s eye opening. It not bias to call out misstatements disproportionately if one candidate disproportionately spews out untruths.

Interesting job. Maybe do a study on how many COVID shots are recommended by each news source.