List your Non-Biased News Sources

[Starlight]

how may think WaPo is mostly unbiased?

They are owned by the richest man in the world and I think their coverage is influenced by that, as well as by their D.C. location and their tendency to buy-into received D.C. wisdom / what their friends on the cocktail circuit tell them. As a result they tend to prefer centrist Democrats or neo-con Republicans, and employ plenty of both as writers, and sneer down their noses at people who are outside their elitist circle, and feel threatened by anyone promoting progressive/left-wing economic views.

They tend to be pretty reliable as to facts they report within their articles. But the way they interpret those facts is usually very much through their elitist champagne glasses and usually in quite a self-focused way. Though the do tend to publish guest pieces from almost any person, and these can vary wildly in sanity, political position, and accuracy of narrative.

So it's a reliable source for facts. Just a dodgy one for opinions. Usually when I see people cite a story from them online there's zero effort made to distinguish a news story from an editorial piece by the person citing it, which is unhelpful.

[Tassman]

Funny thing about Breitbart, nobody has ever pointed out a single factual error in any of the stories that I've referenced in these forums. carpe came up with the novel theory that while Breitbart does report the facts, it's really just a clever ruse so their critics can't accuse them of not reporting the facts. How devious!

Breitbart and the other ultra conservative sources favored by you such as FOX, whilst not necessarily factually wrong, tend towards extreme bias and the consistent promotion of propaganda via the judicious selection of information favorable to their cause. The most reliable news on the electronic media IMHO is that which conforms closest to international media. E.g. the reportage on CNN or MSNBC is pretty much the same as what one gets on ABC Australia or the BBC in the UK. I don't anticipate you agreeing.

[simplicio]

I remember the line by actor Ed Asner (yes a flaming liberal) saying when he was a cub reporter and working the night shift in Dec '41, he got a hot tip. He made a decision to stop the presses and run the headline "Japs bomb San Diego".

A reporter got in hot water recently for really stepping in it, he ran with the story that Kobe Bryant's kids were with him in the crash (all of them). Unlikely that bias influenced his decision to run the erroneous story. And I think it was on his personal social media, something not availble in 1941.

Dan Rather got in hot water for running an erroneous story, about the military service of Bush II. In that case, bias likely did play a part. Rathergate initially had the network placing its prestige on the line in defense of the Killian documents.

Two very different types of mistakes.

Added in edit (so that I do not post to my own post, which is bad form, so I'll add it here to assuage Sparko and Cow Poke):

A third example of a different type, Gayle King interviewed Lisa Leslie and asked about the rape allegation on Kobe Bryant, and receives death threats. The network posted an edited clip in the wide ranging interview, which is what prompted the backlash against the reporter. One thought provoking response from Leslie: Is the rape really part of Kobe's history?. One entertainer posted "Back off- before we come to get you" (which was explained later as not a threat at all!)

[seer]

I like the Hill and Politico and Drudge who basically just links news stories from various sources including all the majors, AP and Reuters are usually OK.

[Mountain Man]

I would say AP and Reuters are generally regarded as the two most non-biased news reporting agencies, and they usually tend to just stick to facts.

I don't read Reuters very often, but I can tell you that AP is as biased as they come. It used to be a "just the facts" news service, but those days are far in the past.

[simplicio]

How do different people decide what constitutes bias?

Is there a non-biased definition which can be referred to? Any methodology which can be brought in? There is another thread which discusses Critical Race theory (crt) within the Christian church, in which one group declared that CRT could be used as an analytical tool.

The "driving while black" is either a real phenomenon in which bias plays a role, or it is a figment of fevered imaginations wildly searching to see evidence of wrongdiong where there is none.

Is there any nonbiased news sources which can be used to learn about the topic?

[Mountain Man]

How do different people decide what constitutes bias?

Is there a non-biased definition which can be referred to? Any methodology which can be brought in? There is another thread which discusses Critical Race theory (crt) within the Christian church, in which one group declared that CRT could be used as an analytical tool.

The "driving while black" is either a real phenomenon in which bias plays a role, or it is a figment of fevered imaginations wildly searching to see evidence of wrongdiong where there is none.

Is there any nonbiased news sources which can be used to learn about the topic?

Here's an example from an AP story I recently read. The opening paragraph:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who gave damning evidence against him during the impeachment probe."

Of course whether or not Vindman's testimony was "damning" is clearly a matter of opinion. An unbiased story would read:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who testified against him during the impeachment probe."

The story later quoted Vindman as saying that the phone call was "improper" when what he actually said was something to the effect of "I believed it was improper." This is an important distinction because the former makes it sound like a statement of fact while the latter makes it clear that Vindman was merely stating his opinion.

The danger of bias is that it can sometimes be subtle and hard to spot, which is why it's important to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

[Cow Poke]

Here's an example from an AP story I recently read. The opening paragraph:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who gave damning evidence against him during the impeachment probe."

Tassman is an expert at this type of "reporting", inserting adjectives and adverbs liberally to force his own interpretation of what happened.

Of course whether or not Vindman's testimony was "damning" is clearly a matter of opinion. An unbiased story would read:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who testified against him during the impeachment probe."

Actually, did he "fire" Vindman? Vindman still has a job, still maintains his rank, still maintains his salary and benefits... He was, in effect, released from an assignment, and moved to another. The official language would be "he was rotated back to his department".

The story later quoted Vindman as saying that the phone call was "improper" when what he actually said was something to the effect of "I believed it was improper." This is an important distinction because the former makes it sound like a statement of fact while the latter makes it clear that Vindman was merely stating his opinion.

The danger of bias is that it can sometimes be subtle and hard to spot, which is why it's important to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

As Jack Webb's character, Joe Friday, famously (never) said.... "Just the facts, ma'am".

[Cow Poke]

How do different people decide what constitutes bias?

EGGzackly. Only an unbiased person could be relied upon to do that, and they are few and far between, if they exist at all.

Then there are the organizations who evaluate news sources for accuracy and bias, but it would be easy to declare those evaluators are, themselves, biased.

Kinda, "can you trust the watchers watching the watchers"?

[Mountain Man]

While I do not follow them closely enough dispute you claims about 'facts'...

You don't follow Breitbart closely enough to judge whether or not their stories are factual, yet you're always quick to dismiss them as a source.

Interesting.

[Cow Poke]

You don't follow Breitbart closely enough to judge whether or not their stories are factual, yet you're always quick to dismiss them as a source.

Interesting.

I actually started this thread because JimL, in particular, does the "dismissal with silly emojis", rather than deal with the actual subject.

If a "liberal" site provided actual video of Trump, for example, saying "I fired Vindman because he was a low life reprobate for stabbing me in the back", I could mock the liberal site all I wanted for their bias, but that doesn't change the fact that (in this example) Trump said what he said*.

This will be complicated further in the future because "fake videos" are becoming quite authentic in appearance, and it will eventually be very easy to produce.

And extreme example is...

‘Vile and horrific’: Fake video of Trump massacring media shown at his Miami resort draws backlash



*it would not surprise me in the least if this came back to bite me because of somebody twisting what I said.

[Ronson]

My main email accounts are on Yahoo! so I scan through their aggregate first. That's mostly Reuters, AP, National Review, and several others I don't recall at the moment. From there, if a story catches my attention, I will seek out more stories through a Google search or on YouTube. Often times I find out about a story on the discussion boards that I frequent. Occasionally I will follow stories on RT (if they are literally or figuratively blacked out in the west).

IMO, they're all biased to some degree.

[Cow Poke]

My main email accounts are on Yahoo! so I scan through their aggregate first. That's mostly Reuters, AP, National Review, and several others I don't recall at the moment. From there, if a story catches my attention, I will seek out more stories through a Google search or on YouTube. Often times I find out about a story on the discussion boards that I frequent. Occasionally I will follow stories on RT (if they are literally or figuratively blacked out in the west).

IMO, they're all biased to some degree.

So, what I often do is find a story on Drudge or RealClearPolitics, for example, and if it looks like it's a conservative or liberal biased site, I try to find a counterpart source to see how they cover it.

Sometimes, when I'm suspicious of a story, I'll start a thread and ask for comment, when I can't find another source discussing it from another angle.

Even there, it's often dismissed because "you got that from BREITBART?!?!?! " (I don't follow Breitbart)

[simplicio]

Here's an example from an AP story I recently read. The opening paragraph:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who gave damning evidence against him during the impeachment probe."

Of course whether or not Vindman's testimony was "damning" is clearly a matter of opinion. An unbiased story would read:

"President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire an army officer who testified against him during the impeachment probe."

The story later quoted Vindman as saying that the phone call was "improper" when what he actually said was something to the effect of "I believed it was improper." This is an important distinction because the former makes it sound like a statement of fact while the latter makes it clear that Vindman was merely stating his opinion.

The danger of bias is that it can sometimes be subtle and hard to spot, which is why it's important to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

An interesting example. Cowpoke zeroed in on the use of "fired" for the removal from a high profile job, you zeroed in on "damning evidence", on testimony which you posted strenuously to show how the evidence was not really damning evidence. And the difference between "improper" and "believe it was improper", when someone states the first, the second (believing it to be improper) is always implied! (example of basic deconstruction as a literary tool)

A variety of sources is one way to "balance" which assumes that one can arrive at some golden mean by increasing sources; it is an approach I admit I use on bible reading, using multiple translation to avoid translation bias.

But you didn't provide any definition of bias which could illuminate the subtle and hard to spot bias.

[Ronson]

So, what I often do is find a story on Drudge or RealClearPolitics, for example, and if it looks like it's a conservative or liberal biased site, I try to find a counterpart source to see how they cover it.

Sometimes, when I'm suspicious of a story, I'll start a thread and ask for comment, when I can't find another source discussing it from another angle.

Even there, it's often dismissed because "you got that from BREITBART?!?!?! " (I don't follow Breitbart)

I don't have any links to Breitbart but I will follow links provided by others to read stories there. So you are providing a discussion board service for me (thanks).

The one place I don't get news from anymore is television. I have drifted so far away from TV news that it is scary. So when I see people accusing others of getting all their news from Fox or CNN I can't relate at all. Not simply because of their biases, but because TV news is very slow (I can read faster than their delivery) and condensed.