LOL. dude what paper outside the US is "mired in US nationalist outlook"?
the real challenge is to find a newsource outside of the US that is not hopelessly biased against the US.
Right. I'm saying that looking outside the US for world news is a good look to avoid a pro-US-interest that almost all US media, from the raving liberal lunatics at Newsweek to the sober, reasonable pundits at Fox News, reflect.
What foreign media do you regularly monitor for their hopelessly anti-US bias?
What foreign media do you regularly monitor for their hopelessly anti-US bias?
I read everything. and though I am not some jingoisitc Fox News rider, I can see the bias in the Guardian's coverage as clear as day. a bastion of objectivity it is not.
What foreign media do you regularly monitor for their hopelessly anti-US bias?
I read everything. and though I am not some jingoisitc Fox News rider, I can see the bias in the Guardian's coverage as clear as day. a bastion of objectivity it is not.
I agree w/ what other said about there being no 100% objective news written by a human hand. Reading from many perspectives and forming your own opinion is the closest anyone going to get to objective "truth."
The quality of the Guardian's reportage trumps any US media outlet I know of; the fact that they're a massive operation with a rich history that's managed to stay independently owned in this day and age should count for something ... and so for those who haven't already I recommend adding them to the mix.
Democracy Now, and yes I know it's biased. But they are usually way ahead of the curve in talking about the issues that only get covered by the mainstream media 6-12 months later.
As someone already said there's no such thing as unbiased news. What you need to do then is if you find a topic or story that's interesting is read as many different sources as possible and stay away from editorials, get as much info as possible and then analyze it yourself.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
As someone already said there's no such thing as unbiased news. What you need to do then is if you find a topic or story that's interesting is read as many different sources as possible and stay away from editorials, get as much info as possible and then analyze it yourself.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
motown nexis search:
Iraq /s America & (imperial! or illegal) & (soldiers /s killed) & failure
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month.
and when i'm finished, the next days periodicals have arrived...
how is fox news biased? beyond bill oreilly hating rap, i don't see it.
I find I don't mind if the news is biased as long as I understand the bias behind it, and can compensate. It can be fun to see the steam coming out of an editorial rant
However... it's the shaded bias that kills. What is the agenda on a Darfur report? Is this network's owner sucking up to the Chinese? Is the sponsor also sponsoring the Olympics? It's too tiring to continually contemplate.
I find that I just want an account of the facts, give me the bare bones of the arguments on both sides, and sign off. On to next item. Seems this is way too hard to do.
As someone already said there's no such thing as unbiased news. What you need to do then is if you find a topic or story that's interesting is read as many different sources as possible and stay away from editorials, get as much info as possible and then analyze it yourself.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
motown nexis search:
Iraq /s America & (imperial! or illegal) & (soldiers /s killed) & failure
Sabada: I don't know what's going on in Iraq nor do I really care, but I know we're winning. Let me cut and paste an editorial, talk shit and claim to be saluting the flag.
As someone already said there's no such thing as unbiased news. What you need to do then is if you find a topic or story that's interesting is read as many different sources as possible and stay away from editorials, get as much info as possible and then analyze it yourself.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
motown nexis search:
Iraq /s America & (imperial! or illegal) & (soldiers /s killed) & failure
Sabada: I don't know what's going on in Iraq nor do I really care, but I know we're winning. Let me cut and paste an editorial, talk shit and claim to be saluting the flag.
at least i name my sources, which is more than you did until i busted your dumb ass over it.
go back to teaching your highschool social studies class or whatever it is you do.
As someone already said there's no such thing as unbiased news. What you need to do then is if you find a topic or story that's interesting is read as many different sources as possible and stay away from editorials, get as much info as possible and then analyze it yourself.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
motown nexis search:
Iraq /s America & (imperial! or illegal) & (soldiers /s killed) & failure
Sabada: I don't know what's going on in Iraq nor do I really care, but I know we're winning. Let me cut and paste an editorial, talk shit and claim to be saluting the flag.
at least i name my sources, which is more than you did until i busted your dumb ass over it.
go back to teaching your highschool social studies class or whatever it is you do.
Sabada once again talking shit and proving that he's incapable of communicating with other people.
On the topic of news sources, I forgot to mention the Christian Science Monitor.
I don't know how their domestic reporting is, but their international section is very good. They're more selective with their reporting, and usually go into issues in more depth.
In my view, most newspapers follow the same M.O. regardless of the editorial board. They want to report on what's the latest news and usually skip any kind of background or analysis. If it's a crime for example, they'll talk to the police and a victim. If it's something related to the U.S. or government, they'll talk to a government official and perhaps a think tank or professor as a second source. Basically, here's the official version, here's one other person's version.
There's also usually very little fact checking in reporting. Getting a quote usually from a second source is about all you have to compare to whatever the official version is of any given event.
From: Flexner, Allison Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS) Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta Subject: Castro guidance
Some points on Castro ??? for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:
* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.
* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba ??? namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.
* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba???s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba???s economic problems are due to Cuba???s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically ??? something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call ???the imperialist,??? meddling in their affairs.
* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.
Any questions, please call the international desk.
From: Flexner, Allison Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS) Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta Subject: Castro guidance
Some points on Castro ??? for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:
* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.
* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba ??? namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.
* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba???s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba???s economic problems are due to Cuba???s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically ??? something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call ???the imperialist,??? meddling in their affairs.
* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.
Any questions, please call the international desk.
Allison
is this bona fide? You have a mole in the camp?! Just the third point in particular seems to be a lot more commentary than the other points, which comes across reasonably even-handed.
And it looks like you can take the NYT off the list now as well.
This flimsyness of the McCain story (titilating readers with a completely unsubstantiated sex scandal as pretense for rehashing a 20 year old scandal that McCain has apologized for ad nauseum ever since) may just put the stake in Pinch's heart over there, but if you think that kind of thing is good reporting, please dont complain when the republicans start unwrapping Obama.
And it looks like you can take the NYT off the list now as well.
This flimsyness of the McCain story (titilating readers with a completely unsubstantiated sex scandal as pretense for rehashing a 20 year old scandal that McCain has apologized for ad nauseum ever since) may just put the stake in Pinch's heart over there, but if you think that kind of thing is good reporting, please dont complain when the republicans start unwrapping Obama.
i told you mccain had skeletons. why is it bad reporting? the story came from top aides to mccain who i guarantee will now be named after mccain's press conference this morning, denying the whole thing. the "sex scandal" isn't even the issue - its whether he went back to his old ways and pushed legislation for lobbyists whom did favors for him. he is the poster boy for obama's what's wrong with washington speeches. a majority of the american publican isn't familair with the keating 5 scandal - but they will be now!
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
and no I don't mean the editorial page.
the news reporting is the best, most accurate out there.
even Chomsky agrees.
LOL. dude what paper outside the US is "mired in US nationalist outlook"?
the real challenge is to find a newsource outside of the US that is not hopelessly biased against the US.
Right. I'm saying that looking outside the US for world news is a good look to avoid a pro-US-interest that almost all US media, from the raving liberal lunatics at Newsweek to the sober, reasonable pundits at Fox News, reflect.
What foreign media do you regularly monitor for their hopelessly anti-US bias?
al guardian
I read everything. and though I am not some jingoisitc Fox News rider, I can see the bias in the Guardian's coverage as clear as day. a bastion of objectivity it is not.
I agree w/ what other said about there being no 100% objective news written by a human hand. Reading from many perspectives and forming your own opinion is the closest anyone going to get to objective "truth."
The quality of the Guardian's reportage trumps any US media outlet I know of; the fact that they're a massive operation with a rich history that's managed to stay independently owned in this day and age should count for something ... and so for those who haven't already I recommend adding them to the mix.
Each day for example I look for Iraq news. I go through the New York Times, Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, LA Times, SF Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC, Economist, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Reports, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Al Jazeera, Aswat Aliraq, Azzaman, and a couple other Arab and Middle East services. Plus think tanks, journals and the British press a couple times a month. Most of the US press and Al Jazeera tends to report on the same things and usually the same ways, if they report on Iraq at all these days, while the Iraqi papers obviously have a lot more and seem to be divided between pro and anti govt.
motown nexis search:
Iraq /s America & (imperial! or illegal) & (soldiers /s killed) & failure
and when i'm finished, the next days periodicals have arrived...
I find I don't mind if the news is biased as long as I understand the bias behind it, and can compensate.
It can be fun to see the steam coming out of an editorial rant
However... it's the shaded bias that kills. What is the agenda on a Darfur report? Is this network's owner sucking up to the Chinese? Is the sponsor also sponsoring the Olympics? It's too tiring to continually contemplate.
I find that I just want an account of the facts, give me the bare bones of the arguments on both sides, and sign off. On to next item.
Seems this is way too hard to do.
Sabada: I don't know what's going on in Iraq nor do I really care, but I know we're winning. Let me cut and paste an editorial, talk shit and claim to be saluting the flag.
at least i name my sources, which is more than you did until i busted your dumb ass over it.
go back to teaching your highschool social studies class or whatever it is you do.
Sabada once again talking shit and proving that he's incapable of communicating with other people.
On the topic of news sources, I forgot to mention the Christian Science Monitor.
I don't know how their domestic reporting is, but their international section is very good. They're more selective with their reporting, and usually go into issues in more depth.
In my view, most newspapers follow the same M.O. regardless of the editorial board. They want to report on what's the latest news and usually skip any kind of background or analysis. If it's a crime for example, they'll talk to the police and a victim. If it's something related to the U.S. or government, they'll talk to a government official and perhaps a think tank or professor as a second source. Basically, here's the official version, here's one other person's version.
is this bona fide? You have a mole in the camp?!
Just the third point in particular seems to be a lot more commentary than the other points, which comes across reasonably even-handed.
This flimsyness of the McCain story (titilating readers with a completely unsubstantiated sex scandal as pretense for rehashing a 20 year old scandal that McCain has apologized for ad nauseum ever since) may just put the stake in Pinch's heart over there, but if you think that kind of thing is good reporting, please dont complain when the republicans start unwrapping Obama.
i told you mccain had skeletons. why is it bad reporting? the story came from top aides to mccain who i guarantee will now be named after mccain's press conference this morning, denying the whole thing. the "sex scandal" isn't even the issue - its whether he went back to his old ways and pushed legislation for lobbyists whom did favors for him. he is the poster boy for obama's what's wrong with washington speeches. a majority of the american publican isn't familair with the keating 5 scandal - but they will be now!
dont fuck with any print media at all
Blogs I read: hotair, climate audit, dissecting leftism, the corner(mark steyn and john derbyshire only), mises institute, marginal revolution.
Lefwting blogs I semi-regularly pwn in the comments: matt yglesias, ezra klein, brad delong.
I like the new, more restrained Dolo. Still repping the right, but not completely over the top.