Most credible, neutral, non-opinionated news source?

[marshal zhukov]

If you're one in a million, then there are 1,300 people just like you in China.

Just noticed your sig. Tremendous.

One of the best sigs I've seen.

People who think they are special or different should read that.

 

[klazlo]

Well, first of all ratings and credibility are two very different things. Many people don't care about the credibility of news, they care about sensational events and halfwit celebs. And the corporate media is driven by the market.

So I voted for BBC.

 

[bhsup]

I'm just pondering the rationality of the two folks who voted for Pravda! I only included that in the poll as a joke.

 

[MobBoss]

how do you know that the documents were forged? they were most likely real.

Buehler? Buehler anyone? Robopig, instead of making that type of baseless reply go and read up on it. Its not like its hard to find. Heck, the web blogs were the first ones on to what happened - not the republicans.

1. Fox News has the highest rating of American news channels because it's sensationalist... you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that everyone automatically prefers completely truthful, unbiased news to anything else, even if that news is boring as hell.
2. As a matter of fact, I *have* compared Fox with other news outlets - otherwise, how could I say that it's definitely not on the unbiased end of the spectrum?
3. When did I say anything about CBS? All I said was that there's no way Fox is the least biased news source.

Then we will have just have to disagree.

 

[Nobody]

BBC seems good. although i think my local news channels are probably more neutral. Although i dont really think the corrupt news thing is as bad as everyone says. Fox News is on tv late at night, and i watch the fox morning guys(and a fairly nice girl) they seem ok, a little funny but it is morning news. Its just i watch it after midnight so blah. anyway they seem to be just as judgemental of america as anyother news.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Although i dont really think the corrupt news thing is as bad as everyone says. Fox News is on tv late at night, and i watch the fox morning guys(and a fairly nice girl) they seem ok, a little funny but it is morning news. Its just i watch it after midnight so blah. anyway they seem to be just as judgemental of america as anyother news.

FoxNews calling the events which happened in France last weeks "muslim riots" should be neutral ? Not only the common point between rioters wasn't Islam, but also those who where muslim certainly not riotted under religious claim.

You should be more careful while watching FoxNews, the "fair and banlance" stuff is purely superficial, it's about the way news are delivered, not about the content of those news. And when I hear all the Americans on CFC who were convinced that Ben Laden was behind the riots in France, I'm sorry to tell you that such a distortion of news (cause it's not anymore a bias here but simple distortion of news), is extremely dangerous.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

BBC's impartiality and quality is being recognized.

Bleurgh. If you had lived through a major industrial dispute (such as the Falklands) or a significant conflict involving British forces (such as the miners' strike) then you would know that the BBC's "impartiality" is very thinly stretched at times of pressure. The BBC's sports reporting is particularly hopelessly partial (and at times, almost racist), and always has been.

 

[aaglo]

"Most credible, neutral, non-opinionated news source?"

Civfanatics's Off-topic -section.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I remember that one episode of Jon Stewart where they showed Geraldo Rivera (or some other FOX News reporter) being blown around and knocked over by Hurricane Rita's winds, and Jon said "proving once and for all, that while he may be fair, he is certainly not balanced."

 

[marshal zhukov]

Bleurgh. If you had lived through a major industrial dispute (such as the Falklands) or a significant conflict involving British forces (such as the miners' strike) then you would know that the BBC's "impartiality" is very thinly stretched at times of pressure. The BBC's sports reporting is particularly hopelessly partial (and at times, almost racist), and always has been.

I don't agree. There was a scandal involving the BBC in which the BBC made false accusations about the UK government, proving that the BBC is not afraid to criticize the British government.

I agree with you that the BBC sports reporting is quite partial. I hate hearing about what happened in the CRICKET match between England and South Africa, who cares?
Nobody likes Cricket, that's a boring sport, heritage of their colonial past.

 

[marshal zhukov]

FoxNews calling the events which happened in France last weeks "muslim riots" should be neutral ? Not only the common point between rioters wasn't Islam, but also those who where muslim certainly not riotted under religious claim.

You should be more careful while watching FoxNews, the "fair and banlance" stuff is purely superficial, it's about the way news are delivered, not about the content of those news. And when I hear all the Americans on CFC who were convinced that Ben Laden was behind the riots in France, I'm sorry to tell you that such a distortion of news (cause it's not anymore a bias here but simple distortion of news), is extremely dangerous.

Yep, Fox News has a tedency of labeling things in the most inappropriate way.
I am getting really disappointed with Fox News

 

[Che Guava]

My choice is the CBC...the best of canadian public broadcasting

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I don't agree. There was a scandal involving the BBC in which the BBC made false accusations about the UK government, proving that the BBC is not afraid to criticize the British government.

I didn't say that the BBC is afraid to criticise the British government. But they're still biased when it comes to issues involving Britain. For example, when the UK had to leave the ERM, the BBC (and virtually all of the press) decided that it was easier to blame the Germans for not cutting their interest rates than to accept our own financial incompetence. Any discussions on the UK's EU rebate are quite noticeably from the British pespective, and any comments on how the rebate is viewed in other EU countries tends to be an afterthought. And nothing visibly cheers a BBC economics correspondent more than finding some indication that the UK economy is oputperforming, by some indicator or another, the other principle economies of Europe.

I agree with you that the BBC sports reporting is quite partial. I hate hearing about what happened in the CRICKET match between England and South Africa, who cares?
Nobody likes Cricket, that's a boring sport, heritage of their colonial past.

Actually, the radio cricket commentators are pretty impartial, just to spoil the rule (e.g. their delight in the West Indies last wicket stand to beat England in a one day final last year - they were just keen to recognise good cricket). The football, athletics, rugby, golf, and tennis commentators on the BBC are biased, and, I'm fairly sure, are instructed to be so.

 

[classical_hero]

"Most credible, neutral, non-opinionated news source?"

Civfanatics's Off-topic -section.

The good thing is that there is some left wing Bias and some Right wing Bias. We should allow news orgaisation to show there bias and then we can form our own opinion. I must say that some site that have been linked here have been very outrageous. The best/worst, depending on your bias, was some guy quoting from David Duke. That has to one of the worst links ever.

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as an unbiased news source, and that is coming from an unbiased source, you can quote me on that. The best thing that news broadcasts should be doing is bring debate to the issues of the day and should never be the end all of all thought.

If I were to choose one, I would say that Sky News is one of the better sources for News. I am talking about the Australian version, not the British one, which is just as good.

 

[bigfatron]

I didn't say that the BBC is afraid to criticise the British government. But they're still biased when it comes to issues involving Britain. For example, when the UK had to leave the ERM, the BBC (and virtually all of the press) decided that it was easier to blame the Germans for not cutting their interest rates than to accept our own financial incompetence. Any discussions on the UK's EU rebate are quite noticeably from the British pespective, and any comments on how the rebate is viewed in other EU countries tends to be an afterthought. And nothing visibly cheers a BBC economics correspondent more than finding some indication that the UK economy is oputperforming, by some indicator or another, the other principle economies of Europe.


Actually, the radio cricket commentators are pretty impartial, just to spoil the rule (e.g. their delight in the West Indies last wicket stand to beat England in a one day final last year - they were just keen to recognise good cricket). The football, athletics, rugby, golf, and tennis commentators on the BBC are biased, and, I'm fairly sure, are instructed to be so.

Hang on, are you really saying that, in order to be viewed as an unbiased source of reporting, the BBC should be equally positive about pieces of news showing the UK economy underperforming and overperforming? Of course the BBC will present the content adn impact of the news at least partially from a British perspective, otherwise it would report on every bus crash in China and each gang murder in Sao Paulo.

Similarly, sports reporters are not meant to present an indifferent precis of the result, but to engage and capture public interest in the sports performance, especially where national teams are involved - I expect them to focus on the local team's performance, not the overseas' opposition. If you want disinterested coverage, turn the sound down - boring but effective!

The BBC, like every broadcaster, will suffer occasional falls from grace, as it did in the early nineties when too cowed to criticise government economic policy, or with the report on WMD. However, as a democrat (small 'd') I'd rather have a broadcaster with a slight anti-establishment bias than the other way around.

 

[bhsup]

How about bias in weather reporting? I know it sounds silly, but it really ticks me off when the meteorologists put their personal spin on what the weather will be like. "Beautiful sunny and warm day tomorrow, another glorious day without snow" when talking about a November day. Sorry, but in November I -want- to see cold and snow, so it's not beautiful. Just stick to the facts and keep the opinions out of it! Grr!

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Hang on, are you really saying that, in order to be viewed as an unbiased source of reporting, the BBC should be equally positive about pieces of news showing the UK economy underperforming and overperforming? Of course the BBC will present the content adn impact of the news at least partially from a British perspective, otherwise it would report on every bus crash in China and each gang murder in Sao Paulo.

The problem comes between using judgement to try and decide what is newsworthy for your target audience (fine), and broadcasting an interpretation of that story where your interpretation is intended to be how your target audience would interpret it (not so good). Thus I think the BBC is quite right in accepting that it's basically a regional broadcaster (with some pretensions to world coverage) and thus select stories based on their relevance to UK people, but is wrong to spin those stories by seeing them through British-tinted lenses.

Just to be clear, I have no problems with journalists or broadcasters being at odds with the government (and can undertsand why it can healthy to have such a situation), but I don't believe that being at odds with one's government is any indication of lack of bias per se.

 

[toh6wy]

Then we will have just have to disagree.

I guess so.

I would suggest again that you watch Outfoxed, but now I can see it wouldn't really do anything if you did.