In your opinion which news source has the most credibility?

[downtown]

Thomson is Canadian and their acquisition of Reuters will make them the biggest financial information provider ahead of Bloomberg and Dow Jones (which is being acquired by News Corp.).

Is that final? I thought the Dow "wasnt for sale"...or am I thinking of the Wall St. Journal?

 

[Neomega]

PBS

For Frontline and the Newshour.

 

[History_Buff]

I voted BBC. CBC isn't bad either, and generally stuff that shows up in Reuters/AP is pretty reliable, but thats mostly online stuff.

 

[Whomp]

Is that final? I thought the Dow "wasnt for sale"...or am I thinking of the Wall St. Journal?

Dow Jones is a news service that owns the Wall St. Journal, Barrons and Marketwatch is their financial service product. They'll still be third behind Thomson and Bloomberg though. Thomson fills a nice gap in their product line by adding a new service like Reuters.

 

[Cuivienen]

Of those, the BBC. Overall, NPR (National Public Radio to you non-Americans).

I voted for the BBC because an "Other" vote doesn't tell you anything about the relative reliability of the choices.

TV News: BBC
TV News (American only): CNN, if the Daily Show doesn't count, but really they're all different levels of trashy
Radio News: NPR
Print News: The New York Times

 

[Nylan]

I trust CFC bot. All hail the bot!

 

[JollyRoger]

I voted the Wall Street Journal, if you ignore the editorial page. It's as if the editorial page writers don't read the rest of the paper which generally has excellent reporting.

 

[emzie]

Of Broadcast media, BBC hands down.

 

[WillJ]

I trust CFC bot. All hail the bot!

No, the bot is biased!

 

[jeps]

CBC.

The Star no. The Post, quite definately. (though I still read the star).

actually, 24 Hours. Miki is so not fake....

 

[ComradeDavo]

BBC. It has a good reputation for being neutral.

 

[Tycoon101]

No, the bot is biased!

It will be the leading propoganda-spreader when the "Robot Revolution" comes upon us!

Flee for the hills!

 

[bathsheba666]

Well, I'd say they all suck the same, since they're all for bucks and entertainment.

The BBC does not need to bring in advertisers;
has no shareholders;
and its mission to inform is alongside, not part of, the one to entertain.

 

[Rossiya]

I've only heard of two of them, BBC and Al-Jazeera.

 

[bhsup]

The Wichita Eagle is about the best paper I've ever read. About as neutral as I've ever seen, save for their opinion/editorial section of course. And then there is The Kansas City Star...

 

[azzaman333]

None. All are lying bs artists who only show a very small part of the news, instead prefering to focus on random crap which is literally completly useless.

 

[MobBoss]

Reuters. The whole company is structured to maintain editorial independence.

Reuters wont even use the word terrorst or terrorism as I recall....

 

[Zarn]

BBC. It has a good reputation for being neutral.

I have read and seen the BBC. I'm going to have to disagree. Just because many believe it is unbiased, doesn't mean it is unbiased.

There really is no unbiased source. Even every analyst/ reporter in an organization varies.

 

[Red Door]

The BBC does not need to bring in advertisers;
has no shareholders;
and its mission to inform is alongside, not part of, the one to entertain.

Okay, but listen to this. All humans have some kind of bias, is BBC not run by humans?

 

[azzaman333]

You can only get the facts by checking every single news source, and comparing which facts are repeated most common. No one news source alone is credible.