Where do you get your news from? Where have you found to be the least biased and most truthful?

Views: 297

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think you can get truly unbiased news, but some are clearly more balanced than others. 

This chart is as good as any I've seen trying to map them:

For what it's worth. 90% of my news comes from either NPR (both local, national and world + BBC world service reports), or reading the NYT and WSJ. The rest filters in via social media (twitter/fb/forums) or organic searches. I don't watch television news. 

That explains a lot.

I'm going to choose to believe that you mean it explains my balanced insight because I'm not thrown around by misleading, over-simplified, television news.  ;)

I'm almost certain that's what he meant. 




This is a great post.  I agree with you.

NPR / BBC news podcasts and NYT / WSJ as a balance of print.  I'd put NYT about the same to the left as WSJ to the right but all of that is biased personal opinion.

I like Reuters and Associated Press for basic new also.

There is no unbiased news. Even pulling straight from the wires isn't unbiased. Just read everything and adjust. Or, if you're not that interested, set your homepage to yahoo.

The way I try to watch a combination of sources is this (and The Truth is somewhere in the middle of all this, a task for me to figure out if I can):

- I watch local NBC news during the week.

- I watch ABC national news during the week.

- I try to watch CBS local and national news on the weekends (if sporting events allow for the news to appear at all).

- My wife watches Fox news a lot.

- My two 30-something sons get news from BBC online (they say that all of the U.S. networks are run by the same person[s] so they all say the same thing; they are also waiting for us to see if we see a change on local stations since so many of them are now owned by the same company, one that has connections with The Trump).

And like I said at the beginning, my hope is that the truth is somewhere in the middle of all this, a task for me to figure out if I can.

It's ironic, but TV is so amazingly low bandwidth.  It has video, but the video is eye candy, and rarely shows you anything with news content; the content comes from the voiceover, which is great for emotional content but -- since you can't easily look back over it -- it's harder to be certain you got a fact rather than an opinion.

Case in point for me:  long ago I saw a 30-sec spot on NBC Nightly News.  Wm Buckey, charged with serial sex abuse at the day care center he ran with his mother, got off from his trial for same, because a problem was found in the way the evidence was gathered.

Years later I read an article about it.  The problem with the way the evidence was gathered was that the jury didn't believe it.  They believed it had been manufactured by the prosecution, who coached the children in what to say, made sure they'd gotten it, and filmed them saying their lines.  And "got off" meant "stayed in prison awaiting charges the DA hadn't brought earlier because they were even weaker than the ones he was just cleared on."

"A problem was found with the way the evidence was gathered."  Subtle!  And hard to see thru, especially if you just hear the words and they're gone.  30 seconds to deceive the viewer.  It worked on me, and I'm sure it worked on millions.  That's the cost of TV news.  I use print now, either physical or online.  I get so much more.

I also read newspapers (yeah, the kind on actual paper -- what can I say?  I'm a caveman).

Years ago a group that I was in visited a local TV station and we had a question-and-answer session with the director of news for that station.  He told us that in the 20-something minutes that are available for the news (excluding the commercials), he has to include weather and sports, which means he actually has only a little bit of time for the actual news.  So he has to decide what to include and what he cannot include, and these are only the highlights of stories because of the time crunch.  That's why I read newspapers as well, because there stories can include many more details than TV news can.


Latest Activity

R. Max 2.0 replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"One might say sad. Saaaaaad."
3 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"I appreciate that he hasn't forgotten who took him this far, but if he keeps this up I'm not sure of the logistical value of it. It may be good for his PR and for morale in general but it's not good for the nation's purse."
3 hours ago
Shane replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"Standard Trump rally. You guys don't want to watch it."
5 hours ago
Sir replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Facts sure do complicate things.  Great post."
5 hours ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Total eclipse 8/21, US mainland
"Was that cool, or what?"
5 hours ago
Dave K left a comment for JP
"Thanks For the friend request JP"
5 hours ago
Specs joined Liam Strain's group

AoM Secrets and Mysteries

A place for the open discussion of alternative metaphysics, the occult, magick, paganism, and other cosmologies not otherwise represented.
8 hours ago
Roger Adam replied to Christopher Everet's discussion How do you handle just being friends with your crush?
"I agree"
9 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service