Most credible, neutral, non-opinionated news source?

[Perfection]

I think Stratego's blog is pretty neutral.

 

[MobBoss]

because the republicanssaw him as a threat and forced CBS to make him resign.

Sorry Robopig, but that dog dont hunt. The only people that forced CBS to take action was the public. If Dan Rather didnt make an apology then go, their ratings and reputation would have been hurt far worse that it was. Word of advice...not everything is a republican conspiracy.

if you dont think that FOX news lies, i suggest you compare what they say to the truth. then you will see the difference between FOX and the truth. they may not have used forged documents but they did show pro bush and anti kerry programs to change the elections.

I do compare what they say to the truth and more often than not, they have proven to me at least, that they are the most truthful news channel out there. If you didnt notice they called Bush on a lot of the stuff he said as well during the election. But then again, you were 11 then and were just probably watching the simpsons!

i can agree with her. though not all, about half of bush voters are total idiots in my opinion.

Please, I sure hope the democrats continue to espouse this belief. They wont win another president election for 20 years if the alienate that many voters.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

AP and Reuters seem pretty good. Most other stuff is biased one way or the other, that is why I like to watch Fox News and CNN, listen to NPR, and read Al Jazerra online.

For TV, the two shows I try to watch are the O'Reilly Factor and the Daily Show w/ John Stewart. Good humor with the major issues.

 

[Stapel]

I post this before: "He who seeks bias, finds bias". Note those who complain about bias the most the ones more biased themselves.

I doubt those who complain about bias, are more biased themselves. Some are, some are not.

But bias IS everywhere.
Even a neutral bias exists: Picking those issues for publication, to show or prove neutrality.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I doubt those who complain about bias, are more biased themselves. Some are, some are not.

But bias IS everywhere.
Even a neutral bias exists: Picking those issues for publication, to show or prove neutrality.

Of course bias is everywhere. However, there's a line between media which seek to picture different points of view, and media which want to enforce a point of view.

What is often called objectivity is of course not objectivity, but a balance between the dominating points of view in a specific country. Hence a neutral media in the US would be considered as insanely biased in a European country, but such a bias is understandable.

If you take someone such as Ruppert Murdoch, it's obviously someone who has a political agenda, and he assumes it as such and claim it. His purpose is to enforce a point of view in making it heard more firmly than others. Here I wonder if we can hear about biased journalism or if we haven't reached yet pure and simple propaganda.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

But bias IS everywhere.
Even a neutral bias exists: Picking those issues for publication, to show or prove neutrality.

I think you're confusing subjectivity and the need to exercise judgement with bias.

 

[Stapel]

I think you're confusing subjectivity and the need to exercise judgement with bias.

I don't think so. Or if so, it is a matter of words and their meaning.

Please, explain why you think so.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Please, explain why you think so.

Dictionary.com (not a great source, I know, but adequate for this) gives the relevant meaning of bias as "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."

A "neutral bias", which you've claimed exists, is, I would claim, an oxymoron.

Bias certainly exists within many of the news distributors you've mentioned. I would hope that no one would quibble that the BBC, for example, shows a preference or an inclination in its selection of news stories - the question is surely just whether that inclination then inhibits the the BBC from showing impartial judgement. My opinion is that it does (on more occasions than I am comfortable with).

I'm not terribly sure there is any preference or inclination shown by AP, Reuters or AFP - although arguably they do publish news which they think their clients (mostly the broadcasters) will see as most "newsworthy". If that inclination exists, I really don't believe that their desire for newsworthy stories in any way inhibits their impartial judgement (and, actually, if you know much about those agencies, you'll know they desperately try to avoid inserting their own judgement into any stories other than those which they clearly label as "analysis").

On the other hand, there are an almost infinite number of possible news stories. The three agencies mentioned need to exercise judgement about where they send their reporters and which stories are newsworthy. However, such exercising of judgement is not necessarily bias, and does not necessarily prevent the judgement being impartial.

 

[Stapel]

Dictionary.com (not a great source, I know, but adequate for this) gives the relevant meaning of bias as "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."

A "neutral bias", which you've claimed exists, is, I would claim, an oxymoron.

What I mean with a neutral bias:

If a news source is regarded, by itself and by others, as neutral, it might have a bias towards this neutrality. If at a certain time news is spilled out in favour of a certain phenomenon, a neutral medium might be inclined to search for stories that back up the other side. I'm not saying that is wrong. Journalists have a duty to find 'the other story', but it can certainly be a bias.
Political correctness might also be a facto in it.

Anyway: A bias to make your medium appear neutral is certainly existant, all too often.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If a news source is regarded, by itself and by others, as neutral, it might have a bias towards this neutrality. If at a certain time news is spilled out in favour of a certain phenomenon, a neutral medium might be inclined to search for stories that back up the other side. I'm not saying that is wrong.

I am That kind of thing often goes too far. For example, until recently, the major news media coverage of global climate change would lead the average viewer to think that the scientific community was closely divided on whether anthropogenic climate change is taking place.

You're in Europe, so you probably get plenty of healthy no-holds-barred journalism to compensate for the deficits left by the "neutral" sources. Lucky dog.

 

[SuperSloth]

PBS here in the US is a pretty good source and its a nonprofit orginization. for indepth news i like PBS more than the big news corps like cnn, msnbc, fox, etc who spend 80% of their time on celebrity trials and the weather. why the hell would i care if its sunny in raleigh, south carolina? PBS not only covers US national news, but also headlines from across the world. PBS also runs BBS news.

 

[IglooDame]

PBS here in the US is a pretty good source and its a nonprofit orginization. for indepth news i like PBS more than the big news corps like cnn, msnbc, fox, etc who spend 80% of their time on celebrity trials and the weather. why the hell would i care if its sunny in raleigh, south carolina? PBS not only covers US national news, but also headlines from across the world. PBS also runs BBS news.

I think I can say for certain that nobody cares if it is sunny in raleigh, south carolina.

Anyway, I agree with you that PBS lays off the celebrity crisis of the moment, which is quite refreshing.

 

[Irish Caesar]

why the hell would i care if its sunny in raleigh, south carolina?

Perhaps you should watch more news, as Raleigh is the capital of North Carolina.

 

[RoboPig]

Sorry Robopig, but that dog dont hunt. The only people that forced CBS to take action was the public. If Dan Rather didnt make an apology then go, their ratings and reputation would have been hurt far worse that it was. Word of advice...not everything is a republican conspiracy.



I do compare what they say to the truth and more often than not, they have proven to me at least, that they are the most truthful news channel out there. If you didnt notice they called Bush on a lot of the stuff he said as well during the election. But then again, you were 11 then and were just probably watching the simpsons!

Please, I sure hope the democrats continue to espouse this belief. They wont win another president election for 20 years if the alienate that many voters.

firstly, i am not 11, i am 12. i suggest you get the facts before posting. second, i dont watch the simpsons on FOX because they are a stupid channel. i dont mind watching the old ones on UPN Detroit. thirdly, the "public" was the republicans. i dont think anyone anti bush minds true papers being showen about the president.

also, why would i watch FOX if theyre shows are crappy, the news is so spun up that you cant tell what is true anymore and they only hire their anchormen and woman for looks

 

[Irish Caesar]

firstly, i am not 11, i am 12. i suggest you get the facts before posting. second, i dont watch the simpsons on FOX because they are a stupid channel. i dont mind watching the old ones on UPN Detroit. thirdly, the "public" was the republicans. i dont think anyone anti bush minds true papers being showen about the president.

also, why would i watch FOX if theyre shows are crappy, the news is so spun up that you cant tell what is true anymore and they only hire their anchormen and woman for looks

During Dan Rather's embarrasing little episode, you would have been 11.

The Simpsons are the same on whatever channel they're shown.

These papers were not even remotely true, and you should just admit that. Even if they implied something that was true, CBS, a trusted news source, knowingly and intentionally aired a false report using forged documents.

Oh, and FOXNews and your local news on Fox affiliates are two very different things.

 

[RoboPig]

During Dan Rather's embarrasing little episode, you would have been 11.

The Simpsons are the same on whatever channel they're shown.

These papers were not even remotely true, and you should just admit that. Even if they implied something that was true, CBS, a trusted news source, knowingly and intentionally aired a false report using forged documents.

Oh, and FOXNews and your local news on Fox affiliates are two very different things.

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

 

[Irish Caesar]

There are many reasons to believe the documents were forged.

If nothing else, even CBS admits that the reporting was a disgrace.

For a bit of irony, read this one!

Edited to add links.

 

[Kayak]

I do compare what they say to the truth and more often than not, they have proven to me at least, that they are the most truthful news channel out there. If you didnt notice they called Bush on a lot of the stuff he said as well during the election. But then again, you were 11 then and were just probably watching the simpsons!

Independent studies by the Pew Research Center have found that those who got the majority of their news from Fox were most likely to be factualy incorrect about events in the Iraq War.

 

[toh6wy]

Delusional? For one thing, I have taken the time to actually view the other american news channels and to me its pretty darn obvious. Fox news also has the highest rating of any of the american news channels as well...are all those people delusional as well?

Your as bad an elitist as Teresa Hines-Kerry when she said that only an idiot would vote for Bush. Attack the person without comparing the news outlets at all.

You think CBS was balanced when it put out the Dan Rather story without checking the validity of the documents in question? Think about why Dan Rather doesnt do the news anymore.

Oh please.

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.

I have some advice for you: watch Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. It's quite revealing.

 

[marshal zhukov]

BBC is just owning the poll.
92 votes and the BBC has 32% of the votes.

BBC's impartiality and quality is being recognized.