Most reliable and unbiased news sources
Options
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ
Members Posts: 3,985 ✭✭✭✭✭
It seems these days your either left or right, pro-democrat or pro-republican. It is hard to find any news source that isnt indirectly bashing the other side. Are there any news sources which are completely neutral and unbiased?
Comments
-
smh... does not exist.
daily show with jon stewart is as close as it gets. he makes fun of both equally -
Check out independent sources like dissidentvoice.org or democracynow . At the end of the day you have to reconcile the two(mainstream and independent) and draw your own conclusions.
-
Quite honestly....you kind of just have to be smart enough to understand what is and isn't ? , cause at least a little bias is inherent in any source.
-
No such thing as unbiased as a rational thinking human you have to put the pieces together and be skeptical what these media outlets feed you.
-
I'd say PBS but rightists will call any news agency not in their favor biased.
-
Fox News, duh.
-
Michael Smerconish is good.
-
NPR is where I turn to for a good news source.
-
there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. You do just have to filter through it. Its best to get your news from as many different sources as you can, except for Fox
being biased is one thing, being inaccurate is another
whether its anchors, political strategists, reporters etc they do have the hottest looking females on air though -
shootemwon wrote: »Quite honestly....you kind of just have to be smart enough to understand what is and isn't ? , cause at least a little bias is inherent in any source.one_manshow wrote: »No such thing as unbiased as a rational thinking human you have to put the pieces together and be skeptical what these media outlets feed you.
this is what it really comes to. -
I read the economist and the new york times, both are pretty reliable and biased, haha but that's the best u can hope for
-
Did ? really say NPR? LMAO! Thats the epitome of left-wing propaganda at its essence.
-
le roi marquis wrote: »Did ? really say NPR? LMAO! Thats the epitome of left-wing propaganda at its essence.
you have a good example? -
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »It seems these days your either left or right, pro-democrat or pro-republican. It is hard to find any news source that isnt indirectly bashing the other side. Are there any news sources which are completely neutral and unbiased?
yea. me ............ -
le roi marquis wrote: »Did ? really say NPR? LMAO! Thats the epitome of left-wing propaganda at its essence.
prove it........ -
konceptjones wrote: »prove it........
Off the top of my head George Soros, a HUGE left-wing philanthropist donated 1.8 mil to NPR so that they couldhire100 new "reporters". Before that NPR fires Juan Williams for his comments on FOX news since they went against the grain of the liberal meme.I'n no conservative but the press conference that the NPR executive made the announcement at cited his "divisive comments" as the reason for his firing. Thats code for him not being a sheep since he said he is wary of Muslims on airplanes(not justifying his comments). Ron Shiller, an NPR executive was caught lambasting and vilifying Conservatives and Tea Partiers alike. He also happened to be a far up fund-raising executive.Or how about Nina Totenberg-Democrat wishing that Republican Jesse Helm “gets AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” She received no punishment for her vitriolic remarks. Or how about the fact that they not only made Noam Chomsky submit what he was to say during an interview, but pre-record him so that he didn't deviate from the limits that they set. Again I don't condone any of the aforementioned comments, but here are examples that NPR aint what you think it is. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »Only in the minds of those, who are the epitome of neo-Fascism supporters, at it's Essence
Care to expound on that? I mean NPR is also pro-Israel, aka the most Fascist regime on the planet. They routinely downplay Israeli atrocities and wrongdoings. -
le roi marquis wrote: »Off the top of my head George Soros, a HUGE left-wing philanthropist donated 1.8 mil to NPR so that they couldhire100 new "reporters". Before that NPR fires Juan Williams for his comments on FOX news since they went against the grain of the liberal meme.I'n no conservative but the press conference that the NPR executive made the announcement at cited his "divisive comments" as the reason for his firing. Thats code for him not being a sheep since he said he is wary of Muslims on airplanes(not justifying his comments). Ron Shiller, an NPR executive was caught lambasting and vilifying Conservatives and Tea Partiers alike. He also happened to be a far up fund-raising executive.Or how about Nina Totenberg-Democrat wishing that Republican Jesse Helm “gets AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” She received no punishment for her vitriolic remarks. Or how about the fact that they not only made Noam Chomsky submit what he was to say during an interview, but pre-record him so that he didn't deviate from the limits that they set. Again I don't condone any of the aforementioned comments, but here are examples that NPR aint what you think it is.
i guess i was expecting some actual reporting that NPR has done that has been so insanely liberal, like you can easily find on MSNBC. NPR has been inaccurate about ? just as everyone has, but i would like to see examples of how their reporting that has been so consistently liberal. i would like to see examples of people purposely and consistently twisting ? in their reporting like on MSNBC and FOX. as for that ron schiller thing, as expected james o'keefe heavily edited the video, so it turned that what schiller said was taken out of context. the noam chomsky thing is new to me, but that only proves how liberal they are not. same about israel, i thought liberals hate israel? and funny thing is, people have called NPR anti-semitic because they thought that their reporting was too anti-israel, pro-palestinian, i ? you not. -
i guess i was expecting some actual reporting that NPR has done that has been so insanely liberal, like you can easily find on MSNBC. NPR has been inaccurate about ? just as everyone has, but i would like to see examples of how their reporting that has been so consistently liberal. i would like to see examples of people purposely and consistently twisting ? in their reporting like on MSNBC and FOX. as for that ron schiller thing, as expected james o'keefe heavily edited the video, so it turned that what schiller said was taken out of context. the noam chomsky thing is new to me, but that only proves how liberal they are not. same about israel, i thought liberals hate israel? and funny thing is, people have called NPR anti-semitic because they thought that their reporting was too anti-israel, pro-palestinian, i ? you not.
Well not sure how you came to that conclusion on the Chomsky thing if they are indeed "unbiased" as they heavily edited what he was to say and also removed his segment from his program on which he was to speak completely damaging that respective journalists reputation. As for Israel please be enlightened by this article as it goes into tremendous detail about the NPR sham and especially reporting inconsistencies.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/national-public-radios-npr-pro-israeli-bias/
Since you want specific examples lets talk about how they used the staged protests of Westerns puppets in Venezuela to discredit Hugo Chavez, by saying that he was "Target opponents for Arrest". In actuality those same students were funded by foreign unions including the US Agency or International Development (USAID) to disrupt Venezualan affairs.I mean after all Obama vilifies Chavez right? They report things routinelyfrom the biased point of view including the Rwandan genocide(taking Clintons side), the Iraq war and the atrocities going on in Ethiopia. NPR fails to mention Western intervention completely subverting Somalia. Instead they depict the Somali's as savage people run by warlords, needing the CIA's assistance to have a functional "democracy gimme a break.
Additionally as far as actual reporting that is at a very low level and pretty granular so it isnt necessarily needed to make a case against NPR. Funny how you completely ignored my bit on Soros. The fact of the matter is if you want to know what an entity stands for look at who backs that entity. For example, Murdoch and the Wall street Journal is a great example of a Zionist influencing and very salient piece of media. We also see this point with lobbyists and the like. A media outlet takes on the identity of however provides the most assistance to it hence the bias that gets projected. If you look at NPR's sponsor list it includes CITGO, GM, VISA, and PBS LOL! How can an outlet remain objective when they are getting 1 million plus from corporations. Going with this why doesn't NPR expose corporate wrongdoings?Western government interference in the "undeveloped world"? It is no better than mainstream media. -
let me know when any of these victims of "Western puppets" in South American come close to being the democratically-elected leaders willing to relinquish power in free elections that they claim to bele roi marquis wrote: »Since you want specific examples lets talk about how they used the staged protests of Westerns puppets in Venezuela to discredit Hugo Chavez- -
Oh? It is no surprised that you say this since your sources are most likely Fascist new stations that are incredibly biased and outright wrong. There is a bevy of evidence against Chavez's alleged tyranny. But an incredible amount in his favor. Take a gander sir.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/18/venezuela-election
Miss me with the dictatorial nonsense as US media and Government reports are self serving prophecies aimed at generating consent to someday make way for US interest. This cycle is absolutely unending except Chavez is one of the few that has lived to fight the good fight. The fact of the matter Chavez has held fair elections and won by fairly significant margin.s Such elections were monitored by Western organizations as you will see in this article.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3009 -
of course, you leap right to calling my sources "fascist" and "incredibly biased" without even being aware of what they are. simply put: you yourself are incredibly biased and are trying to have it both ways, where you have massive bias and complain about everyone else's bias.le roi marquis wrote: »Oh? It is no surprised that you say this since your sources are most likely Fascist new stations that are incredibly biased and outright wrong.
anyway, let me know when one of these guys voluntarily leaves office. -
Ioniz3dSPIRITZ wrote: »It seems these days your either left or right, pro-democrat or pro-republican. It is hard to find any news source that isnt indirectly bashing the other side. Are there any news sources which are completely neutral and unbiased?
CNN or Headline News.
I like MSNBC but some of their programming is incredibly Leftist.
Dylan Ratigan is prob the best one if your looking for an unbiased view. -
of course, you leap right to calling my sources "fascist" and "incredibly biased" without even being aware of what they are. simply put: you yourself are incredibly biased and are trying to have it both ways, where you have massive bias and complain about everyone else's bias.
anyway, let me know when one of these guys voluntarily leaves office.
I can come to that conclusion because your views are consistent with the same news being spewed on Western networks. Your views are very clear in that first statement you made when you automatically assume that Chavez is a dictator that doesnt allow fair elections. So we are both guilty of bias. The only difference is I have presented to you an alternate point of view that parties in Western media wouldnt dare allow to be shown. I never personally complained about ANYONES bias. I initially complained about NPRs bias so dont play the semantics game with me. Please enlighten me to what your sources are? Of course I am biased everyone is, but that is irrelevant in this case since we are discussing facts. The fact of the matter is when has Western media ever shown government officials explain themselves or Venezuelan citizen polls describe what life is really like in Venezuela? The West assumes that people aren't happy because they always oversimplify with the good vs. evil garbage when they are the most destructive nation on the planet besides Israel. The one-size-fits all ideology of America does not apply to anyone but themselves and the government and media have to understand that. By the way read those articles they have plenty of evidence that Chavez has been fairly elected at every juncture and that the people of Venezuela have rejected policies that they have deemed unfit. -
le roi marquis wrote: »Well not sure how you came to that conclusion on the Chomsky thing if they are indeed "unbiased" as they heavily edited what he was to say and also removed his segment from his program on which he was to speak completely damaging that respective journalists reputation. As for Israel please be enlightened by this article as it goes into tremendous detail about the NPR sham and especially reporting inconsistencies.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/national-public-radios-npr-pro-israeli-bias/
Since you want specific examples lets talk about how they used the staged protests of Westerns puppets in Venezuela to discredit Hugo Chavez, by saying that he was "Target opponents for Arrest". In actuality those same students were funded by foreign unions including the US Agency or International Development (USAID) to disrupt Venezualan affairs.I mean after all Obama vilifies Chavez right? They report things routinelyfrom the biased point of view including the Rwandan genocide(taking Clintons side), the Iraq war and the atrocities going on in Ethiopia. NPR fails to mention Western intervention completely subverting Somalia. Instead they depict the Somali's as savage people run by warlords, needing the CIA's assistance to have a functional "democracy gimme a break.
Additionally as far as actual reporting that is at a very low level and pretty granular so it isnt necessarily needed to make a case against NPR. Funny how you completely ignored my bit on Soros. The fact of the matter is if you want to know what an entity stands for look at who backs that entity. For example, Murdoch and the Wall street Journal is a great example of a Zionist influencing and very salient piece of media. We also see this point with lobbyists and the like. A media outlet takes on the identity of however provides the most assistance to it hence the bias that gets projected. If you look at NPR's sponsor list it includes CITGO, GM, VISA, and PBS LOL! How can an outlet remain objective when they are getting 1 million plus from corporations. Going with this why doesn't NPR expose corporate wrongdoings?Western government interference in the "undeveloped world"? It is no better than mainstream media.
im having a hard time following you. the chomsky thing may say something about bias, you got me there, but certainly not left-wing. i honestly would like to find out more about before i come to a conclusion. as for israel, all you have to do is google "NPR" and "anti-semitic" or "anti-israel" and you are gonna get 1000s of website stating "proof" of how anti-israel they are. its up to you to decide on the validity of that proof. i personally don't feel one way or another about it. if they are bias towards israel, i wouldnt be too surprised but that stance is hardly liberal. as for hugo chavez, and ethiopia, and so on, ill research that on my own, but is it bias or is it that they dont tell you want to hear? if u have a stance on something, than everything outside of that stance is going to seem bias, but hell u might be right. but if you are right, then once again, i fail to see the left wing bias, it would seem to me to be the opposite. especially chavez, if they are so left wing, y arent they taking the side of chavez?
the reason i ignored george soros because it doesnt mean ? to me. NPR and PBS have a lot of donors, many of them corporate donors. but then you acknowledge that, which is another reason why im confused. corporations giving money to a left wing organization? so which one is it? its hard to be left wing and pro-corporate dominance at the same time. just recently i listened on NPR how regulators have struck a deal to protect banks at the cost of mortgage security for seniors. now you can call this liberal, but if they didnt report it and ignored it, then you would call it pro-corporate bias. so no matter what they do, it is going to be wrong. i guess i dont get it .
