Most credible, neutral, non-opinionated news source?

[downtown]

if the washington post says it, it must be true!

also, ron burgendy

 

[Gelion]

BBC when Brits are not involved....

 

[Stapel]

The BBC doesn't have any bias, has never had. They are pubicly funded and don't care about profit.
The BBC just tells the news as it is.

Publicly funded media are usually moderately left-wing biased.
The BBC can't get away from this phenomenon. No one can.

There are other forces than market forces which can jeapardise the neutrality of media.
To put in a louzy example, Pravda also didn't care about profit, and was not influenced by market forces or cared about them....

You seem to be stuck in the opinion profit must lead to bias, and/or profit is the only possible cause for bias.

Unbiased media do not exist. Even if you tell news as it is, you must select what you tell.


I'm not too much into the BBC, but the Dutch public TV stations employ a dozen famous left-wing politicians, for news analysing purposes.

 

[plarq]

Unbiased media do not exist. Even if you tell news as it is, you must select what you tell.

Seconded. The selection of "what to tell" is biased and in a non-obvious way. If you tell lies directly and openly, you need propaganda machine to help covering your butt, but if you only select special stories, people won't realize the bias and are convinced by those sources. The accumalation is dangerous: closed mind with a strong bias against other news agency.

 

[Kayak]

US New & World report was supposedly the most nuetral and unbaised magazine source accourding to a study I heard about last year. Don't ask me to remember what study it was though.

 

[Bill3000]

There is no such thing as unbiased media, and frankly, I find that to be part of human nature. Just the opposite, actually; almost all news is sensationalist. I like the Daily Show out of all of the choices listed, and I'm suprised you didn't list them.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I'd rate AFP, AP and Reuters as equal. Can't believe there are so many voting for the BBC - their coverage is poor when Brits aren't involved (relying heavily for info from local broadcasters or the main three news agencies mentioned above) and is terribly partisan when Brits are involved.

There are really two separate things here, though - news agencies, and news broadcasters. Most broadcasters have limited ability to uncover the news, and rely heavily on the news agencies for that. The news agencies find the news, but in general sell it onto the broadcasters or narrowcast it to specfifc targeted audiences (as Reuters does with its financial news).

 

[Lambert Simnel]

almost all news is sensationalist.

Either you don't visit the AP, AFP and Reuters websites, or you have a completely different definition of the word sensationalist than I'm working to.

I do like the Daily Show though, but some of the interviews are pretty nauseating.

 

[Jecrell]

I don't really like political nonsense -- so I stick with Fox News. I'd like to take that to the grave, but someone could easily argue me into a corner while holding a knife threatening my life just because I watch it. Seriously, some people literally believe that Fox News is an advocate of the national socialist party of America.

The exact same slander is used on CNN and MSNBC -- and I'm sick of it. It's all in the interest of getting people to watch specific networks or you'll go to hell like some kind of christian who deviates from faith.

The only thing I don't like about Fox News is that Sean Hannity seems to have forgotten that he has a co-anchor to his news hour.

 

[Zarn]

Something else

That something else really being nothing else

There are two types of media: Horribly biased and extremely biased

 

[Bill3000]

I don't really like political nonsense -- so I stick with Fox News.

While Fox news surely isn't something akin to fascism as you said some people say, sticking to Fox News to ignore "political nonsense" is akin to sticking to a politician if you hate lying. Fox News is probably one of the most politicized networks.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Voted Pravda , there is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

 

[DBear]

There are two types of media: Horribly biased and extremely biased

sigworthy material right there.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Do as I do: mentally strip the commentary from the news. And that's commen-tary, not commen-tator

 

[Masquerouge]

I'll say the NYT, but that's because I'm biased

 

[MobBoss]

I voted Fox News. Unlike most of you, I have noticed where they have disagreed with Bush and been critical of the adminstration on several points. Out of all the news outlets, I think they give the most balanced view of both sides.

Dont watch the BBC enough to know if its balanced or not. Reuters wont even use the word terrorist so how can they be balanced?

 

[nonconformist]

BBC. Publicly funded, not afraid to stick it to the government.

 

[MobBoss]

BBC. Publicly funded, not afraid to stick it to the government.

Hmmm. Not being afraid to stick it to the government doesnt sound terribly unbiased. Do they give them credit, when credit is due as well?

 

[nonconformist]

Hmmm. Not being afraid to stick it to the government doesnt sound terribly unbiased. Do they give them credit, when credit is due as well?

Yeah, when it is. But they got into a big legal dispute witht he government, for claiming they had proof the government "sexed up" a dossier on WMD, which the government denied, but was proved wrong.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Hmmm. Not being afraid to stick it to the government doesnt sound terribly unbiased. Do they give them credit, when credit is due as well?

They seem to, so they are biased.