The BEST unbiased news source

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
wjs010

wjs010

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
551
all of the related searches are very old, and I'm getting tired of CNN. I think they are just milking every second of the malaysian airline flight 370 even though there is never really any real update. They seem to have "updates" every five minutes...and I'm quite frankly getting tired of most popular news sources...too much bias. I did a search and came up with the independent, but people are saying that even it is not unbiased.

So, which one is it? Drudge report? BBC? The real news?
I just want some good, unbiased, actual news...not who won at the oscars, poppy bull****. I want news. Intelligent and unbiased so I know what's going on in the freakin' world. thanks!
Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm guessing you mean TV news and not print/online? Online I go to reuters, politics is cspan and worldwide is bbc
 
well, it can be any of the three. I really like to READ the news instead of just watching it. So, it would be really convenient to have the app on my phone. I'm about to start med school..so, too poor for paper, even though I would rather read the paper lol. Okay thanks, I'll check reuters out.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
IMO there's no such thing as an unbiased news source. I listen to/read many different sources from many different angles and try to piece it together.

AlJazeera unbiased? Lol
 
If all I wanted was straight news, I'd choose AP, Reuters, PBS NewsHour, The Hill or USAToday. AP and Reuters do have apps.

A 2005 UCLA study of 20 major media orgs found NewsHour was the most centrist overall. USAToday was the most centrist publication. The study also found that while the WSJs editorial pages are conservative, the news pages are liberal.

But I agree with Random Resident. I read all views. The truth is in between.
 
news.google.com
Get a good sampling and can get the same topic from multiple sources.
 
Antiwar.com

Very few sources will buck the military industrial complex.

wjs010 said:
all of the related searches are very old, and I'm getting tired of CNN. I think they are just milking every second of the malaysian airline flight 370 even though there is never really any real update. They seem to have "updates" every five minutes...and I'm quite frankly getting tired of most popular news sources...too much bias. I did a search and came up with the independent, but people are saying that even it is not unbiased.

So, which one is it? Drudge report? BBC? The real news?
I just want some good, unbiased, actual news...not who won at the oscars, poppy bullcrap. I want news. Intelligent and unbiased so I know what's going on in the freakin' world. thanks!
Click to expand...
 
urge said:
FOX News
Click to expand...

Here's a link to an article quoting 6 studies showing that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed of all US TV news viewers. It suggests that this is because Fox News viewers tend to be political conservatives who want to shore up their political beliefs and to avoid cognitive dissonance from information which could contradict those beliefs-

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/foxs_misinformation_effect/

Which would suggest that for an accurate world view one should include at least some media which present a world view at odds with one's natural inclinations as well as some which chime with them. For a conservative world view, I would tend to go to The Economist rather than Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why is this thread on an anesthesiology forum?
 
shopsteward said:
Here's a link to an article quoting 6 studies showing that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed of all US TV news viewers. It suggests that this is because Fox News viewers tend to be political conservatives who want to shore up their political beliefs and to avoid cognitive dissonance from information which could contradict those beliefs-

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/foxs_misinformation_effect/

Which would suggest that for an accurate world view one should include at least some media which present a world view at odds with one's natural inclinations as well as some which chime with them. For a conservative world view, I would tend to go to The Economist rather than Fox News.
Click to expand...
It was meant to be a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
cognitus said:
Why is this thread on an anesthesiology forum?
Click to expand...
You must be new here. :)


Someone mentioned Al Jazeera. About 8-10 years ago, they had an English language web site (english.aljazeera.net which now redirects to aljazeera.com "Aljazeera America"). At the time I was taking an Arabic immersion language course, getting ready for a deployment to Iraq, and would try reading the same articles on the English site and the Arabic site. Now, I was a beginner, and Arabic is a bitch of a language with a different alphabet, but I had help from the instructor. And here's the thing - the original Arabic articles were absolutely saturated with vitriolic gratuitous anti-American anti-Israel anti-western hate. Almost comically so, crazy caricatures, the sort of hyperbole you'd expect from political cartoons. Whoever translated things for the English web site moderated the tone and filtered the content for the western audience.

Fundamentally, I think it's pretty contemptible for a "news" organization to deliberately deliver different stories to different audiences.

So here we are, a decade later, and we have Aljazeera America. No thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
You must be new here. :)


Someone mentioned Al Jazeera. About 8-10 years ago, they had an English language web site (english.aljazeera.net which now redirects to aljazeera.com "Aljazeera America"). At the time I was taking an Arabic immersion language course, getting ready for a deployment to Iraq, and would try reading the same articles on the English site and the Arabic site. Now, I was a beginner, and Arabic is a bitch of a language with a different alphabet, but I had help from the instructor. And here's the thing - the original Arabic articles were absolutely saturated with vitriolic gratuitous anti-American anti-Israel anti-western hate. Almost comically so, crazy caricatures, the sort of hyperbole you'd expect from political cartoons. Whoever translated things for the English web site moderated the tone and filtered the content for the western audience.

Fundamentally, I think it's pretty contemptible for a "news" organization to deliberately deliver different stories to different audiences.

So here we are, a decade later, and we have Aljazeera America. No thanks.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that it's a good source if you're looking for another view. That view may be polarized to one end, but if you're taking a look from different angles you should get a better picture. Just my 2 cents though.
 
cognitus said:
I thought these "off-topic" threads are the ones YOU (the moderator) usually shut down. Guess I have a bit more to learn.
Click to expand...
Off-topic threads are rarely if ever shut down. Probably the only exception would be if there was a troll invasion or a thread spiralled out of control.

Other forums may not tolerate off-topic threads as much but we certainly have had plenty here over the years and is probably one of the reasons this forum is so popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wall Street Journal (center-right with great business/economics coverage) and New York Times (center-left-to-more-left, but you can't beat the quality of the writing). Cable TV news is mostly noise. Washington Post is like the NYT, but more focused on government and politics. Also look at The Economist (which has great science and cultural articles). The Guardian is also pretty good.
 
NICMAN said:
Wall Street Journal (center-right with great business/economics coverage) and New York Times (center-left-to-more-left, but you can't beat the quality of the writing). Cable TV news is mostly noise. Washington Post is like the NYT, but more focused on government and politics. Also look at The Economist (which has great science and cultural articles). The Guardian is also pretty good.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. NYT is far left to extreme left.
 
cognitus said:
Guess I have a bit more to learn.
Click to expand...

You do. There's a reason this forum has been so good for so long. It's because of the mods and the posters who combine clinical conversations with periodic OT (guns, flying, skiing, da U, etc).

Perhaps you should do more lurking and less posting until you figure out what's going on.
 
SouthSideSteve said:
You do. There's a reason this forum has been so good for so long. It's because of the mods and the posters who combine clinical conversations with periodic OT (guns, flying, skiing, da U, etc).

Perhaps you should do more lurking and less posting until you figure out what's going on.
Click to expand...
It's certainly not good because you've had anything interesting to say. I haven't lurked for anything southsidesteve has to say.
 
All news sources are biased. You just have to recognize and acknowledge the bias before digesting the information they present to you. When I watch Fox News, I do so knowing that they are feeding me a conservative slant on every story they present. CNN leans a little liberal. MSNBC is pretty far to the left. Just gotta know where you are getting the info from and take it accordingly.
 
People become reporters because they are on a crusade for their political beliefs, not because they value unbiased reporting enough to dedicate their lives too it. Of course they are biased. Plus, most programming on news channels isn't even news, just intentional misinformation and political advertising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
IanMcGalt said:
People become reporters because they are on a crusade for their political beliefs, not because they value unbiased reporting enough to dedicate their lives too it. Of course they are biased. Plus, most programming on news channels isn't even news, just intentional misinformation and political advertising.
Click to expand...

And you're basing this opinion of an entire profession on what??
 
IanMcGalt said:
People become reporters because they are on a crusade for their political beliefs, not because they value unbiased reporting enough to dedicate their lives too it. Of course they are biased. Plus, most programming on news channels isn't even news, just intentional misinformation and political advertising.
Click to expand...

The content of what is reported has nothing to do with the reporter. It's at the level of editors and executives that content decisions are made. The reporter is just there to get a paycheck and advance their career. They don't care what the content of what they report is and they certainly aren't advancing personal political beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mman said:
The content of what is reported has nothing to do with the reporter. It's at the level of editors and executives that content decisions are made. The reporter is just there to get a paycheck and advance their career. They don't care what the content of what they report is and they certainly aren't advancing personal political beliefs.
Click to expand...

People become news editors and executives because they are on a crusade for their political beliefs, not because they value unbiased reporting enough to dedicate their lives too it. Of course they are biased. Plus, most programming on news channels isn't even news, just intentional misinformation and political advertising.
 
IanMcGalt said:
People become news editors and executives because they are on a crusade for their political beliefs, not because they value unbiased reporting enough to dedicate their lives too it. Of course they are biased. Plus, most programming on news channels isn't even news, just intentional misinformation and political advertising.
Click to expand...

I think a simpler explanation is just that most news strives to be entertaining to boost ratings. Entertainment = sensationalization and pandering to what your audience wants to hear.

I like the Daily Show. At least they don't pretend to be something other than entertainment.
 
pgg said:
I think a simpler explanation is just that most news strives to be entertaining to boost ratings. Entertainment = sensationalization and pandering to what your audience wants to hear.

I like the Daily Show. At least they don't pretend to be something other than entertainment.
Click to expand...

I think their reporting reflects their views. It would be hilarious if Sean Hannity were an atheist, socialist just playing the role like Stephen Colbert, but I'm sure he believes exactly what he says. Obermann, Mathews, Maddow, etc- I'm sure they belief what they say on the air, and they report specifically to further their and their editors' political aims. It's possible that someone like Ann Coulter doesn't believe a lot of what she says but is just creating discussion to sell books, but she isn't a reporter or editor.

Look at heath insurance exchange sign-ups reporting. Leftist reporters KNOW that almost all the people who signed up either are replacing a cancelled plan, are very sick, are old, are on medicaid, or are heavily subsidized. Very few people are actually gaining new access to care and actually paying for it, but msnbc reporting celebrates the sign up numbers. They aren't in the business of providing information, they are part of the democrat campaign machine and honest, informative, critical news reporting will only take place if the truth coincidentally happens to support their political goals.
 
Last edited:
IanMcGalt said:
I think their reporting reflects their views. It would be hilarious if Sean Hannity were an atheist, socialist just playing the role like Stephen Colbert, but I'm sure he believes exactly what he says. Obermann, Mathews, Maddow, etc- I'm sure they belief what they say on the air, and they report specifically to further their and their editors' political aims. It's possible that someone like Ann Coulter doesn't believe a lot of what she says but is just creating discussion to sell books, but she isn't a reporter or editor.
Click to expand...

All of the people you mention are clearly OPINION journalist. They are paid to express their opinions on issues from a certain viewpoint. You haven't shown any understanding or knowledge of how daily journalism actually works.

While some organizations have liberal slants, traditional journalism (i.e. Television, newspaper, magazine, networks) is an overall conservative field with low tolerance for anything out of the ordinary. If one doesn't conform to the overall mission of the employer, you won't last long.

I can assure you, not everyone at Fox News buys in to the network philosophy (ex. Shep Smith). It's a job. Certainly NOT a crusade for reporters, editors or execs. The main driving force, above all, is money. Has nothing at all to do with personal views.
 
Name a news organization, other than maybe pbs, that reports politically relevant stories without tremendous bias. And name reporters whose in air bias does not reflect their private opinion.

How would you know? Interviews away from their jobs. If these people are on talk shows, comedy shows, etc. Their unscripted comments correlate with their on-air propaganda.
 
Last edited:
IanMcGalt said:
Name a news organization, other than maybe pbs, that reports politically relevant stories without tremendous bias. And name reporters whose in air bias does not reflect their private opinion.

How would you know? Interviews away from their jobs. If these people are on talk shows, comedy shows, etc. Their unscripted comments correlate with their on-air propaganda.
Click to expand...

Haven't changed my recommendations since the beginning of this thread.

Journalist: Pete Williams, Bob Dotson, Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson, numerous local reporters--off the top of my head.

Big difference in having personal biases and continuing to report the news objectively--which each of the above do well.
 
So as long as the populace wants to receive misinformation and sensationalized "news," the top news companies will continue to report a bunch of crap? You know the sad thing? MOST people don't even watch the news because it's too boring.

My dad always talks about how Walter conk rite was a good, unbiased reporter. Why can't we have this these days? Americans getting more and more stupid and less prepared to answer any questions about the world ? It's going to be a scary day when I'm the weird one of my friends because I "read the news". . I'm only 25 for god sake. I'm not an old man. More people need to wake up, drink coffee, and read the damn news! Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

I
In the other news front.
Replies
3
Views
1K
triggermaster
T
D
News from AAOS
Replies
18
Views
1K
chessknt
chessknt
I
Correlation equals Causation and other news
Replies
24
Views
2K
chessknt
chessknt
nimbus
Another anesthesiologist in the news
Replies
7
Views
2K
turnupthegas
turnupthegas
TheLoneWolf
Buzzfeed CRNA "secrets straight from the source"
2
Replies
66
Views
5K
Bryan O’Blivion
Bryan O’Blivion
Top