Real unbias news?

[Market Harmony]

Is there such a thing as truthful reporting without a biased perspective? I am so tired of reading one side of a debate and then the other just to whittle out the common ground truth. It's just a big waste of time! Everybody has an agenda for which they are either pandering to or pushing upon an audience. I'd like to find an outlet of simple boring fact-based reporting. Keep the opinion to the people who need to feel good about their viewpoints. Is there anything out there in media land like this?

</rant>

[natsb88]

Rarely.

[68Camaro]

And of course even that very interesting graphic - I do like the concept - is itself hyperpartisan.

[68Camaro]

I'm with you at least in the weariness. In the end for anything that really matters you have to research. Don't read about a speech - listen to it yourself. Of course it's a time killer so you'll have to find people that you trust to be your filters for the less critical topics.

It pretty much sucks that most of the media is ridiculous. Near zero credibility for me. No that would be over stating it. I now presume they are lying. I've watched many events live and then listened to coverage of the event later on numerous channels and been stopped cold. What did they just say? Did I miss something? (I rewatch the event.) Nope - they just out and out lied on national TV without blinking an eye and there is no one left to call them on it.

[gabed99]

Try Washington Journal on C Span. 6am-9am cst

[68Camaro]

I haven't tried that, but will see if the satellite radio link that I think points to it works this morning.

I have to say that the wife and I have increasingly moved to watching major events on C-SPAN versus any network as superior unfiltered product. Regardless of the worldview of the source I get tired of them focusing more on their on-air personalities and guest than the event, and talking over the events.

[blackrabbit]

Good luck with humans being unbiased. I kinda chuckle at that chart above. It seems extremely biased. Who created it?

[Treetop]

Good luck with humans being unbiased. I kinda chuckle at that chart above. It seems extremely biased. Who created it?

LOL probably someone connected to one of the groups in the middle circle.

Honestly, seems to me now would be the perfect time to invest in an honest media source. Lots of people would stick with their biased stuff, but respect for media is at all time lows, and more people associate with the middle then ever. I cant even find a solid web based media source or youtube channel like this. Which honestly seems off. Seems like a totally open market.

[johnbrickner]

I'm hearing "some" good news lately on our local. I've waited over two decades for someone to start doing this. Honest and non-biased? What a concept!

[natsb88]

Good luck with humans being unbiased. I kinda chuckle at that chart above. It seems extremely biased. Who created it?

Lots of different versions of that chart floating around. Here is another.

[natsb88]

[Treetop]

I laughed hard seeing drudge report listed as garbage right. His page is an aggregate source that produces almost no news on its own, that links many hard left sites daily and covers most major stories. Certainly biased, but not garbage. All three versions of that chart had major glaring issues imo. Any story I consider important I read from several sources and have no idea how any of these charts had any major source in the middle column.

[natsb88]

Of course these charts are subjective. You would have to come up with a grading scale and analyze a large number of articles and news pieces and commentary pieces from each source to plot this stuff quantitatively, and even that would be subject to the bias of the individual grading the news pieces. Make it a blind test as much as possible, multiple people gather content and present it to multiple graders with no source or author names on the articles or transcripts. Sounds like an interesting project...

Drudge is an aggregator but shows clear bias in the curated content he promotes. I tend to agree that "garbage right" is off base, but there is no doubt that he is biased pretty hard to the right.

Reading multiple pieces from multiple sources on both sides is usually the only practical way to paint a picture of what is actually going on, short of being on the front line yourself.

[daviscfad]

Hey, where does wikileaks fall into this chart at? On the left 9 years ago, and now a slow drift to the right?

[AuStruck]

The only one that approaches neutral is C-SPAN. I cannot watch it anymore because I'm off of cable.

"News" sources are not enough to be informed. Many significant facts are never reported on "the news". For example: Is it good advice to stay away from "sketchy" neighborhoods? What are some theories on "sketchy"? Some facts don't fit "the narrative", PC or otherwise.

Another example: Why did AIDS never strongly crossover to heterosexuals in the USA but did in Africa? This is OLD NEWS but hardly known. (Possibly) "The truth": Women prostitutes in Africa are often infected with multiple diseases, as are their clients making AIDS transmission far easier. AIDS doesn't transmit easily from women to men through sexual contact in western countries where levels of other STDs and infections are relatively low.

The Internet now provides sources of alternate information and theories. But proceed with caution.

Unz.com is one gateway to alternative sources. It would probably be regarded as right or even far right leaning even though leftists are present there as well. Be aware that at first it may not seem obvious that Steve Sailor, the most prolific blogger there is often satirical or cynical. He and others there will often reference ideas that may be unfamiliar at first, such as criticisms of "Invade the world, invite the world". There are other sources, probably many I've never heard of.

[wolvesdad]

I 90% dont watch, follow or care about news anymore. So far I haven't fallen off the face of planet earth. I get some of the important stuff from 2nd hand.

[johnbrickner]

I stopped getting the news paper and watching the TV news literally, decades ago because there was no good news to be had and didn't want my mind (or my kids minds) cluttered with all the negative content. Still listen to the radio which can be timely with really important stuff (i.e. 9/11). If I'm really feeling like I want to know more details on a subject or happening, I'll look it up on the internet and sift thru the information properly.

I "haven't fallen off the face of planet earth" either so news avoidance seems to work for more than just me. Perhaps more of us should do the same?

[Recyclersteve]

No offense to police officers, but I don't care for time being spent on the national news about some guy 1,000 miles away who is on the loose after shooting a police officer. And then to embellish the story they get someone whose a really good crier to answer the question- "What do you think about what happened today?" Predictably, what follows is buckets of tears.

If I was in the same county the man on the loose would be worth broadcasting, but not 1,000 miles away.

[JadeDragon]

The first version was created by a CNN hater (Trump?) this one is more accurate

[Treetop]

I still dont get how the drudge report could be "garbage right". They have links up from far lefty sources daily. Im not aware of other major sources that do anything close to that. Including other aggregate sources Ive found.

[NHsorter]

Hey, where does wikileaks fall into this chart at? On the left 9 years ago, and now a slow drift to the right?

Wikileaks is not Right/Left. They publish whatever verifiable information that they can get that will damage corrupt bastards.

And to the various graphics in the thread... they are all garbage. Maybe even worse garbage than the garbage being put out by those populating the charts.

[natsb88]

Hey, where does wikileaks fall into this chart at? On the left 9 years ago, and now a slow drift to the right?

Wikileaks is not Right/Left. They publish whatever verifiable information that they can get that will damage corrupt bastards.

We have no way of knowing that they "publish whatever verifiable information that they can get." We only see what they actually release. It is possible (very likely) that they are sitting on much more information than they choose to release, and we also saw from the DNC emails that they do choose to throttle the release of documents with strategic timing. I think Wikileaks has provided us with very important information about partisan corruption and government overreach that implicates individuals from all political backgrounds, and I am glad they have exposed what they have exposed, but I'm not under any illusion that the Wikileaks organization is totally neutral or publishes every piece of dirt they get their hands on. They have their own goals and they release information in a strategic manner.

[Thogey]

It is impossible to deliver unbiased news.

1,000,000 people could witness an event and each come away with something different.

No one here could do it, unless you only delivered the W's on a randomly selected topic.

It's just part of the human experience.

[Thogey]

Perfect example.

The reporting about the MMIII FOTE shots from Vandenberg:


Those missiles were picked years ago. It is a huge pain in the ass!. They are picked at random, moved to Vandenberg and launched east to west. Major effort to get this to work.

These tests are normal, I knew plenty of guys who did them. They have nothing to do with Korea.

The reports of the shots is unbiased and accurate. But it is news only because of the current situation. Bias

[Treetop]

With wikileaks I expect NHsorter is right, and yes they do try to time releases for the most impact. Some have claimed for instance they work with russia, perhaps not realizing that they put out alot of embarrassing things on russia/putin in the past. Most involved in that organization are known lefties. There could still be some bias there, but they have went against a wide range of nations and both sides of the political isle, who knows what they might get and never post but they seem to mostly just care about corruption. The original documents that came out just as hillary won the democratic nomination were already public btw. Put out by some small group no one pays attention to.

While thogey is ultimately right I do think there is still major room for improvement within that.