No such thing as unbiased news. It is all opinion and spin with sprinkled in facts. You just have to be able to easily separate out the facts.

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.

https://www.democracynow.org/
My only complaint is this is pressing news and usually sad. I wish they had more positive stories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox isn't even considered to be a new channel by the FCC.

That's a total lie.

https://checkyourfact.com/2020/01/23/fact-check-fox-news-accreditation-entertainment/

Perhaps you should stay off social media.

They have claimed they are entertainment to escape defamation lawsuits. While it’s true there is no category at FCC for news vs entertainment, so they couldn’t have changed it - they, and their talent, have proactively claimed they’re entertainment.

All the parrots saying fox news is the devil haven't turned on fox news in 3+ decades I bet. Try watching it before parroting things social media told you to parrot. Free think. Judge for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Fox isn't even considered to be a new channel by the FCC.

That's a total lie.

https://checkyourfact.com/2020/01/23/fact-check-fox-news-accreditation-entertainment/

Perhaps you should stay off social media.

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.

This. Consume from a variety of sources, particularly from those you find difficult to read or against your own bias.

I think the problem is not finding the right source so much as being able to read something with a discerning eye and understand it and be able to look up facts to better understand.

For example, if you read something and it say "the police report states" ... that is just a bunch of lies and statement from witnesses. If it says the "police investigation" it means the police actually did an investigation and checked sources and looked for physical evidence. The "investigation" also is not 100% correct, it's to the best of their ability (highly different depending on jurisdictions). So, you always have to read with a grain of salt.

Crime data, for example, they may say 300% increase in crime since last year. But what if in the last 2 years crime decreased each year 75%, then a 300% increase is still very low.

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.

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?

Fairly certain they were kidding when they intimated NPR and the Washington Post are in any way unbiased.

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 listen to WTOP in the morning to get a sense of the day’s most important news. If something catches my interest, I may look for more details on NYT or CNN. Washington Post used to be my go-to source, but I feel like it’s heavily biased now.

Fox isn't even considered to be a new channel by the FCC.

All news sources have bias but if you consume a variety of news sources and are a reasonably educated person then you should be able to discount the biases and draw your own conclusions while still relying on these sources for facts.

No one should be consuming just a single source for news. And given that generally you know what the biases are within a news source so you should be able to counterbalance with another source.

This is the problem with Fox -- their bias is heavy and extreme but they claim it is not. In my opinion if you are relying on Fox as a news source then you should probably also be reading mother jones and listening to the BBC in order to counter that bias. Which almost no Fox viewers are.

When an issue is very important (ie the election) I constantly rotate between different sources to try and get a fuller picture.

But if I'm just looking for general facts on a current event any of the major newspapers or cable channels is usually okay just to get up to speed.

Mother jones.