News sources that attempt to be "neutral"?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I generally think that it is impossible to be totally unbiased, but what news sources at least seem to make a good attempt at reporting the news in a netral way?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Well, according to numorus research studys... as long as you stay away from the talk shows, it's Fox News. I've linked to the studys before. UCLA's study I find the most compeling.

[torn asunder]

Well, according to numorus research studys... as long as you stay away from the talk shows, it's Fox News. I've linked to the studys before. UCLA's study I find the most compeling.

just for my clarification, you're saying you feel fox is the least biased/most neutral based on these studies? i'm not saying that's good or bad, as i don't watch the news, but i ask because i'm surprised. it seems everywhere i look, fox is accused of being very biased.

again, i'm not making any kind of comment one way or the other about it, i'm just asking.

[Guest Megalicious]

The BBC. Nation Public Radio. I don't really watch TV ( with few exceptions).

And yes, everyone has an agenda to some degree. The question is how skewed and fudged is the information they are giving?

[Destroit]

just for my clarification, you're saying you feel fox is the least biased/most neutral based on these studies? i'm not saying that's good or bad, as i don't watch the news, but i ask because i'm surprised. it seems everywhere i look, fox is accused of being very biased.

again, i'm not making any kind of comment one way or the other about it, i'm just asking.

Fox is only called biased by people who's agendas directly oppose it. So basically, Fox News is called biased by people who are incredibly biased and are only trying to sling mud in order to make their personal agenda look better. That's always been my take on it. Fox tries to expose things rather than cover it up like, oh say, MSNBC. I check both sources regularly, read British news, read Canadian news, read German news and will begin on Japanese news when I'm fluent enough. I hear that Japan's news is one of the most heavily censored though. I'm not sure if this is true as I haven't looked into it thoroughly, this is just what I've heard from people over the years.

My answer: ALL news channels or sources are probably somewhat biased, even if it is just a little bit. That is why I feel it best to check several sources and cross-reference them.

Fox is only called biased by people who's agendas directly oppose it. So basically, Fox News is called biased by people who are incredibly biased and are only trying to sling mud in order to make their personal agenda look better. That's always been my take on it. Fox tries to expose things rather than cover it up like, oh say, MSNBC. I check both sources regularly, read British news, read Canadian news, read German news and will begin on Japanese news when I'm fluent enough. I hear that Japan's news is one of the most heavily censored though. I'm not sure if this is true as I haven't looked into it thoroughly, this is just what I've heard from people over the years.

My answer: ALL news channels or sources are probably somewhat biased, even if it is just a little bit. That is why I feel it best to check several sources and cross-reference them.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

just for my clarification, you're saying you feel fox is the least biased/most neutral based on these studies? i'm not saying that's good or bad, as i don't watch the news, but i ask because i'm surprised. it seems everywhere i look, fox is accused of being very biased.

again, i'm not making any kind of comment one way or the other about it, i'm just asking.

Fox is accused of bias because people can't seem to seperate the commentary shows from the news broadcasts. O'Riley and Hannity are not news shows, and don't pretend to be news shows... they are talk shows.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Thats ONE of many studies that have shown liberal media bias.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I generally do lump the commentary shows in with the news shows as "news". I guess I need to rework my definition. For instance if I pick up a magazine I read the "opinion pieces" along with the regular more "matter of fact news" as a whole package on balance between these two would be how I'd view the "bias" (or lack of) of the whole thing.

I guess my use of the term "news" isn't as accurate as it could have been.

Well, according to numorus research studys... as long as you stay away from the talk shows, it's Fox News. I've linked to the studys before. UCLA's study I find the most compeling.

The BBC. Nation Public Radio. I don't really watch TV ( with few exceptions). And yes, everyone has an agenda to some degree. The question is how skewed and fudged is the information they are giving?

My primary new sources (lately) are NPR and the BBC World thing that NPR feeds through at night. I listen to them pretty regularly. BBC World seems fairly unbiased via my non-scientific survey of their reporting, but NPR seems clearly left slanted. Not that I turn it off because of that, i listen to it almost every day and have been doing so for ages. But I do notice minimal coverage of the conservative side of things, if at all (other than 5 seconds here and there).

Fox is accused of bias because people can't seem to seperate the commentary shows from the news broadcasts. O'Riley and Hannity are not news shows, and don't pretend to be news shows... they are talk shows. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htmThats ONE of many studies that have shown liberal media bias.

When I'm thinking about a "news source" I guess i should be saying "political media source". Not sure how to define it when I really AM intending to lump the matter-of-fact stuff with the opinion pieces.

For instance Mother Jones does have "news feed" type stuff, but on balance its a straight liberal magazine and billed as such. National Review does have "news feed" type stuff but on balance its a straight conservative magazine and billed as such. We probably could find neutral stuff within both, but as a whole they are one or the other.

[candyman]

I generally think that it is impossible to be totally unbiased, but what news sources at least seem to make a good attempt at reporting the news in a netral way?

I am being totally serious here but I think that Colbert Report and John Stewart do it the best. They poke fun at the people that need it but they also turn it around and hit the other side with some mud. Yes it is on Comedy central and is sort of a joke but what they give you along with some investigation of your own leads to a fairly good and somewhat unbiased knowledge base. Honestly the comedy hitting both sides is why I like it. I have had many professors let us those shows as examples in class so they have some credit...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Fox is only called biased by people who's agendas directly oppose it. So basically, Fox News is called biased by people who are incredibly biased and are only trying to sling mud in order to make their personal agenda look better. That's always been my take on it. Fox tries to expose things rather than cover it up like, oh say, MSNBC. I check both sources regularly, read British news, read Canadian news, read German news and will begin on Japanese news when I'm fluent enough. I hear that Japan's news is one of the most heavily censored though. I'm not sure if this is true as I haven't looked into it thoroughly, this is just what I've heard from people over the years.

My answer: ALL news channels or sources are probably somewhat biased, even if it is just a little bit. That is why I feel it best to check several sources and cross-reference them.

Theres a long list of cover ups (or "ignored stories due to ownership bias") by all the major media sources.

You can find lists of the various people in charge of the media outlets and (in foxes case) its a long list of conservatives(with token liberals), in the case of most other news agencies its a long list of liberals (with token conservatives). BUT, hopefully there are some conservatives and some liberals that attempt to "do their job" in TRYING to be neutral. I somewhat dislike liberal/conservative, democrat/republican concepts as they draw too narrow a view of what are often very widely varying opinion groupings but, like it or not its how we label things at the moment.

I'm with you on "doing the research". People that know me privately know I research the hell out of things, I'm just looking for specific suggestions that some people might have / trying to start a conversation.

Wait... I meant GAH I'm blind i cant see your text!!

[Soulrev]

Am I the only one who thinks there's a real possibility that all the media in the country is being controlled? I dunno, http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main but that shows basically who owns the media in this country. That, and Ted Turner's ties to the Bilderberg group, I dunno what to believe anymore.

[Hellion]

I avoid the news/media(2 FOX,4,7,) as much as possible,although I do listen here and there to WWJ 950 AM for the traffic report on the 8's,gotta know that an idiot driver jacked up the freeway,so I know ahead of time and take a different route to get to wherever I'm going.

The weather outlook,if they ever get it right,LOL!!

The Osgood Files,always worth listening too,mostly the history part.

The construction report

and

"This Day in History"really cool.

everything else I just don't bother.

[Nightgaunt]

Am I the only one who thinks there's a real possibility that all the media in the country is being controlled? I dunno, http://www.freepress...ship/chart/main but that shows basically who owns the media in this country. That, and Ted Turner's ties to the Bilderberg group, I dunno what to believe anymore.

I'm with you there. I tend to believe that or media is "mostly" controlled in this country. There area lot of "alternative" media outlets that aren't; some of them even have reliable information, but all are biased one way or another. You have to educate yourself on the issues of the day, going to the primary sources yourself as much as possible. You start to see how the mainstream media words things to leave you with a specific impression that's not always accurate. Often, they just outright lie.

[torn asunder]

I am being totally serious here but I think that Colbert Report and John Stewart do it the best. They poke fun at the people that need it but they also turn it around and hit the other side with some mud. Yes it is on Comedy central and is sort of a joke but what they give you along with some investigation of your own leads to a fairly good and somewhat unbiased knowledge base. Honestly the comedy hitting both sides is why I like it. I have had many professors let us those shows as examples in class so they have some credit...

i don't know about colbert, cuz i don't get comedy central (haven't in ages) but i absolutely love john stewart. it's been so long since i've seen him though, that i don't know whether he's slanted at all. he has a great way of lambasting the stupidity of *everyone*, regardless of political affiliation, from what i remember seeing.

[hunhee]

I'm with Meg, when I HAD television, and watched the news, I watched the BBC or the CBC and listened to NPR till my FM radio went out on me. Now I just ponder the world in my head while I drive down the road.

[Nightgaunt]

Now that I think about it, Alex Jones seems to be one of the most trustworthy journalists out there today. He's most definitely not neutral and he exaggerates a lot. I think his tendency to exaggerate stems from a desire to make people pay attention and research for themselves, however. For every claim he makes, he cites sources and provides links so that you can check it out and form your own opinion. He is neither left nor right, which is a big plus in my book. His main websites are Infowars and Prison Planet.

[phee]

Just a comment about Fox News...

If what is being said is true about them having the most unbiased reporting (and this may in fact be true... I am not sure). The fact that their pundants are so "noisy" and "right wing" that it drowns out the possibility of the rest of the channels content being viewed as "fair and balanced." If Fox News were to have a bag of "mixed nuts" for their talk shows instead of just "right wing nuts" people might take their news more seriously.

The chances of this are slim to none however if you consider how Fox News came into being and how it is owned.

I like NPR, Daily Show, Cobert, as well as good old surfing.

I generally try not to go on what the news networks say.

[candyman]

i don't know about colbert, cuz i don't get comedy central (haven't in ages) but i absolutely love john stewart. it's been so long since i've seen him though, that i don't know whether he's slanted at all. he has a great way of lambasting the stupidity of *everyone*, regardless of political affiliation, from what i remember seeing.

Both those guys are pretty much the same as far as providing the news...they just have different styles when it come to presenting it.

They are both slanted but in a good way...they slant in any direction they want and use that to poke fun at everyone. You get the news and you get a laught...doesn't get any better than that.

[SomeDanGuy]

BBC and NPR are the best.

[SomeDanGuy]

Fox is accused of bias because people can't seem to seperate the commentary shows from the news broadcasts. O'Riley and Hannity are not news shows, and don't pretend to be news shows... they are talk shows.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Thats ONE of many studies that have shown liberal media bias.

Did you read what the study actually was? It's kind of a silly measure. They just added up the number of times a station referred to one of the typical political thinktanks. Considering that the typical news report these days consist of "Important Person said X" and then giving the response from the opposition group's thinktank in order to provide "balance" and that republicans were in charge for 8/10 of the time of the study, I am not impressed. And it doesn't even measure the main sources of bias - omission of stories, the cutting choices of montages and the subtle, snide comments the anchors make about the stories during transitions. Fox is by far the most slanted organization calling itself "news" out there.

[the eternal]

Well, according to numerous research studies... as long as you stay away from the talk shows, it's Fox News. I've linked to the studies before. UCLA's study I find the most compelling.

Fox is only called biased by people who's agendas directly oppose it. So basically, Fox News is called biased by people who are incredibly biased and are only trying to sling mud in order to make their personal agenda look better. That's always been my take on it. Fox tries to expose things rather than cover it up like, oh say, MSNBC. I check both sources regularly, read British news, read Canadian news, read German news and will begin on Japanese news when I'm fluent enough. I hear that Japan's news is one of the most heavily censored though. I'm not sure if this is true as I haven't looked into it thoroughly, this is just what I've heard from people over the years.

My answer: ALL news channels or sources are probably somewhat biased, even if it is just a little bit. That is why I feel it best to check several sources and cross-reference them.

Gaf, please read this post and take notes. Chernobyl is able to convey your views and your passion, with 100% less of your baiting, condescending, trolliness.

I don't expect you to be as cool as her overnight, because, well she's Chernobyl, so that could never happen, but you gotta start somewhere.

back to Chernobyl--

"Fox is only called biased by people who's agendas directly oppose it."

This is ACTUALLY what I've found with NPR.

It's dry, it's informative, it's a little boring--the way news is.

I love NPR! Yet most conservatives can't stand it, because it actually DOES report the news,

and not just the news that the left or right wants to hear, the news that actually is important for the day.

Sometimes, when shit was going down with Bush during his presidency,

everyone was talking about it, even right wing bloggers.

Everyone except Fox News.

If there wasn't anything nice to say about Bush that, they just didn't report it.

That way you can decide not to know about it.

And yet, every since BEFORE President Barack Obama got sworn in,

OUR president of the United States of America,

there has been constant news stories questioning him and openly slamming him.

Tea party rallies haven't been reported, they've been PROMOTED, like it was American Idol.

Sometimes, it's not just how you report news (which they do in a very biased manner as well),

it's WHAT news you report.

Fox is accused of bias because people can't seem to seperate the commentary shows from the news broadcasts. O'Riley and Hannity are not news shows, and don't pretend to be news shows... they are talk shows.

That's probably because most Fox newscasts have the tone and opinions OF a commentary show,

and it's extraordinarily hard to tell the difference.

------------

On a side note, I've noticed that as MSNBC has moved to the left, CNN has tried very hard to move to the middle.

Fox News was a conservative news network from Day 1,

started BY a conservative

who runs the rag the New York Post,

with a news division started and run BY a conservative activist, Roger Ailes,

with anchors that often have conservative blogs on the side.

Possibly Fox's most respected anchor was Brit Hume, who left FOX News to be part of the conservative Bush Administration.

MSNBC has never been as hard left in the news division as Fox has been hard right, probably due to the fact that it isn't part of their ideological DNA.

Simply put, MSNBC are news whores for whoever will be a repeat John.

Becoming more liberal was a business decision, after failing at being conservative.

They tried to mimic Fox's popularity by hiring nutjob firebrands like Michael Savage, who was so crazy, even Fox passed on him.

When they reinvented themselves as a liberal network, CNN raced to the center.

Unfortunately, CNN seems like a bipolar network with no spine.

You'll see these news stories that end with

"Well, I just trashed the SEIU president and I just trashed a corporate CEO making both sides feel like I was a tough news person, all the while not really digging any deeper than the surface or telling you anything you didn't know"

WHY The Daily Show is great, is, despite Jon Stewart being liberal, he'll be the first to attack a liberal.

He has no problem attacking anyone of any stripe as long as they're full of bullshit, he'll go after them.

He wants the truth, and the news networks seem to have a problem showing it. And he loves hypocrisy.

Why is that Fox News will trot out old ham-fisted criticisms of Pelosi or Reid,

whereas Stewart, on a day when HE'S attacking them,

will instead find fresh footage of Reid and Pelosi saying the EXACT opposite of a belief that they're staking their career on---thereby

showing the Dems to be full of shit?

WHY?

Because

A. He's not lazy, unlike most news outlets.

AND

B. Because tomorrow he'll do the same thing to GOP's Boehner and McConnell

Which Fox will NOT do.

That's why I loved George Carlin.

He attacked everyone.

BULLSHIT WAS HIS ENEMY

STUPID BULLSHIT

Edited because there were grammatical errors of mine and spelling errors of others that were bugging me.

Edited April 25, 2010 by the eternal