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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Very Orwellian.
There are actual facts and there is reporting on the facts. The idea that we live in a post-fact world is part of the MAGA platform to get everyone to not trust our institutions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are a handful of legit reporters at Fox. I honestly feel sorry for them, because they are drowned out by the godawful editorializing.
They have some great stringers, on-location reporters, and beat reporters such as Jennifer Griffin and Trey Yingst. Trey’s embeds in Middle East are just eye popping. Some of the best reporting around. BBC and NPR (vintage) level.
Brett Baier is also very solid.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Al jazeera
Anonymous wrote:There are a handful of legit reporters at Fox. I honestly feel sorry for them, because they are drowned out by the godawful editorializing.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
There is also a chart showing how far sources lean. I usually look at foxnews, nytimes and bbc and then call it a day.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
+1 same. Belive it or not foxnews is more sane and fair than cnn, nbc, and the others. Give it a try.