Unbiased news request
skel
You can't cheat karma 5,033 Posts
Is there ANY reliable news source these days? Or is it impossible to have unbiased news?Where are strutters getting a trusted worldwide perspective from?Please clue me up
Comments
hahahaha
but no unbiased adult commentary, pro's and cons both sides
just kids smoking crack and worse
It's like a vox pop snapshot of the state of the world at any one time, and it isn't too pretty
Journalism 101: There is no such thing as objective or unbiased news. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot remove one's subjectivity from the act of collecting and presenting information. A journalist's decisions during the news manufacturing process are always informed by his/her past experiences of what is "important" in a story, what the "best" sources for information are. Often the worst bias is that which informs the decisions of what to include in a story, and when to conclude the information gathering process.
But some organizations provide more well-rounded stories than others. Try the BBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal for starters.
so you saying an amalgamation of these sources more or less equals the true news picture?
Maybe there's a space for an agency to do just that
News by consensus
Not really. To get the full picture, you'd need to spend infinite lifetimes each day consuming information and sorting it all out. I'd say just pick an outlet or three you find particularly trustworthy and take what you read and hear with a grain or a tablespoon of salt. If the information is important to you, remember to ask yourself, "what is missing in this story?"
www.realclearpolitics.com
I would watch Channel4 news (which is part of th ITN network) if I was going to watch any daily news show in the Uk.
There are other programs on the BBC that deal with current affairs, that do a better job. But these are more specialist shows that go more in-depth into a subject, and are not daily, so it gives them time to give a more considered version of events. Rather than the 'Look at this' 'Look at this' approach of 24h news.
I had the misfortune of being in the middle of a 'news story' a year ago, and I can pretty much say that nearly every news report on the subject, was sensationalize to make good 'tv'.
Global Pedophile Ring Busted
British Authorities Say More Than 700 Suspects Targeted, 31 Children Rescued
LONDON, June 18, 2007
I just became aware of how legged over the public was with Sky reporting on the 39th premier league game
The usual reporter refused to spin it how the station boss requested, so they got a finger-tame hack to do it.
All to serve the money making purposes of RM's sports megalomaniac agenda.
Sounds like you're really a moderate who's been branded a liberal by the extreme right wing. I'm in this camp as well.
In what way?
They're more comprehensive than network news - which is limited by the little time they have to cram a day's worth of news in - and less opportunistic than 24 cable news - which forces stories in an effort to fill time. And I think NPR, in general, does a fairly good job of trying to present things from a balanced point of view.
Perfect? Of course not. But they're certainly not biased in the way that, say, Fox is biased. Of course, I''m not sure any news organization can claim that.
I thought they had the rep of being a bit right leaning?
I actually like The Economist a lot - not for being unbiased per se...their free market love is off the chains...but it's a good way to get summaries on everything going on out there. I used to read The Week and I'm not mad at it but I find The Economist to be much more thorough.
newsweek and the economist are both left leaning.
Newsweek owned by WaPo.
And Fox is slightly left of center, but better than nothing.
Newsweek is like network tv news in magazine format, trying way too hard to be "evenhanded" so that all of the nuances of the stories are washed out. The Economist is great for news that you won't find in other media outlets (at least in America) and their crazy pro-business bias is pretty easy to filter out. I like the extra amount of context they provide to their stories, not just reporting the event but also the historical antecedents that caused the event or made the event possible.
i am an open and admitted fanboy of the Economist. I also think FD & WSJ (sans opinion page) have some pretty balanced information.
My basic (and very capitalist) feeling is if the media outlet promotes wealth accumulation or management through the information they provide, then they may be a bit more evenhanded, as it does them no good to provide biased information that could be seen as preventing there audience from maximizing wealth.
the invisible hand of journalism perhaps?
Washington Journal on CSPAN is top notch
unfortunately i usually don't have time to watch it
but certainly check CSPAN channels, most of the original programming is excellent
They aren't as balanced as you proclaim them to be. And when news gets presented from a strict altruistic perspective, it wears on me. They're not as biased as Fox, but they aren't a paragon of virtue either.