Anonymous wrote:BBC and NPR

Both are extremely liberal

Anonymous wrote:There has been no unbiased reporting of romneys tax returns.
Has anyone noticed that?

Um, the "biased" reporting I have seen is that he refuses to release them. So how would an UNBIASED source actually report on that? Or, how about, how would a pro-Romney biased source report on that? In other words, can YOU give me an explanation as to why it's reasonable that he is withholding his tax returns? After the black guy had to produce his birth certificate????

BBC and NPR

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am a conservative and I think, with Stephanoplous (sp) it's pretty close to unbiased. Amanpour was another issue, but, thankfully, she is gone.

Is that the same Stephanopoulos who worked for President Clinton?

I don't think that means he can't be fair. David Gergen's career was made in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and yet I think he is pretty fair all around.

Anonymous wrote:
I am a conservative and I think, with Stephanoplous (sp) it's pretty close to unbiased. Amanpour was another issue, but, thankfully, she is gone.

Is that the same Stephanopoulos who worked for President Clinton?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bbc is good. The only news source in the country that I like
Russia today is biased, but provides a fresh perspective.
Al jazeera gives the news that american press is afraid of

And MEMRI gives you news that America-haters are afraid of.

I had not heard of them and, since I do not hate America, I thought I would take a look. Then I saw the list of directors and advisors and promptly shot soda out of my nose. They are a collection of former politicos and military known to lean far to the right and /or pro-Israel. And included in their stated purpose is to assist the US government. Regardless of whether you like what they do, I don't see how on earth such an organization could ever be described as unbiased.

MEMRI translates various Arabic media. What, are you afraid to find out what the oppressed really think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bbc is good. The only news source in the country that I like
Russia today is biased, but provides a fresh perspective.
Al jazeera gives the news that american press is afraid of

And MEMRI gives you news that America-haters are afraid of.

I had not heard of them and, since I do not hate America, I thought I would take a look. Then I saw the list of directors and advisors and promptly shot soda out of my nose. They are a collection of former politicos and military known to lean far to the right and /or pro-Israel. And included in their stated purpose is to assist the US government. Regardless of whether you like what they do, I don't see how on earth such an organization could ever be described as unbiased.

Anonymous wrote:Bbc is good. The only news source in the country that I like
Russia today is biased, but provides a fresh perspective.
Al jazeera gives the news that american press is afraid of

And MEMRI gives you news that America-haters are afraid of.

Anonymous wrote:There has been no unbiased reporting of romneys tax returns.
Has anyone noticed that?

There is a pretty simple way to remedy that, isn't there?

There has been no unbiased reporting of romneys tax returns.
Has anyone noticed that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Come on! This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes, but just try finding a story on that from the fish's point of view.

Here is what the fish think.

http://www.thepolkfishwrap.com/view/full_story/19537674/article-Colo--massacre-suspect-mum-as-he-heads-to-court

Anonymous wrote:

What does the news do? They put out huge news bulletins that say the Right/Left does not think killing kids is heinous - refuse to sign bill increasing punishment on kid killers.

That's an example of not having both sides represented equally - or giving equal time.

I just figured out your problem. You're mistaking press releases as "the news."

Anonymous wrote:
Come on! This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes, but just try finding a story on that from the fish's point of view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is unbiased. Look at any news article from a credible source, and you'll find even the tiniest word - perhaps only 3 letters long - that can change the tone of the piece in a hot second.

Well balanced means
- both sides are presented with the same amount of material
- with the same quality of sources
- absent of any words that can persuade a reader to take one side over the other

virtually impossible

I don't think that's a good definition of unbiased. Not all positions are equally supported by facts, and giving equal time regardless of the evidence is part of the problem with news. If we had to give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat vs. round, all for the sake of "balance", then the press has failed to achieve its most basic goal: to inform. Instead, it has given fifty percent of its time to misinformation.

Well, here's another way to look at it. Let's say there's an important bill in congress - it's about 1000 pages long with several provisions in it. The left will highlight the good provisions that favor liberals or pull out provisions that bash the right, the right will pull out provisions that favor conservatives or bash the left. no news source has enough air/print time to list ALL the provisions and discuss them or summarize them.

here's another example - there could be a bill that has a really good provision that everyone agrees with...say.... i don't know...killing kids is heinous and has extra punishment attached. Yay, everyone agrees that it's a great bill. But, someone (pick a side...left/right...doesn't matter) sneaks in a small amendment like, oh, and everyone has to be taxed -flat tax - of 75% of their income. Now, the other side (right/left - whichever is opposite of the first side you picked) doesn't sign the bill.

What does the news do? They put out huge news bulletins that say the Right/Left does not think killing kids is heinous - refuse to sign bill increasing punishment on kid killers.

That's an example of not having both sides represented equally - or giving equal time.

Unbiased? No.

I usually find these sources reasonably well-balanced:

Roll Call
Politico
Real Clear Politics
The Economist