• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Least biased news sources?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Here is an excellent primer on bias in the media.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18458_6-subtle-ways-news-media-disguises-bullshit-as-fact.html

It does not say who is "fair and balanced" but offers something far more important. It's an essay on bullshit.

Cow feces are independent of ideology, however there is bias in almost every story. Why? Because news is business, therefore it has certain goals, like making money.

Objective reporting is a scarce commodity. At least know when you are being scammed.
 
Patranus said:
My god you people are lazy

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436 ...
Click to expand...
I brought this up the last time you linked this study, but naturally you disappeared. Let me try it again.

Do you actually read your own links, or did you just accept some wing-nut blog's word for it when they told you what this study shows? I ask because it doesn't show what you claim it shows. I strongly suspect you would gag on its findings if you actually read and understood them.

In a nutshell, it's true this study found MSNBC to be biased. It did NOT find Fox to be any better, however. On the contrary, it found Fox to be about equally biased as MSNBC, but at opposite sides of the political spectrum of course. "On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC."

The study also found CNN was relatively unbiased, contrary to the usual accusations of left wing bias we hear from folks like you. "The tone of CNN’s coverage, meanwhile, lay somewhere in the middle of the cable spectrum ..."

What they did find about CNN, however, is that it tends to be more negative overall to both sides. I suspect the wing-nuts view this as a liberal bias because they only notice this negativity when it's directed against the right. When CNN is negative against the left, on the other head, you just nod your heads and say, "Damn right."

Finally, the study also noted little bias among the big three broadcast networks. "On the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere." This again contradicts the usual right wing claims of liberal media bias.

I assume you will ignore the actual findings of your selected study and continue to see Fox as "Fair and balanced" and the rest of the MSM as those ebil libruhls.
 
Last edited:
MAINSTREAM NETWORKS ARE ALL BIASED!

They all pander to the lowest-common denominator.

CNN is getting hit hard and some shows have lower ratings than popular youtube channels.

It's all about the $$$$$. What pays is what plays. Evaluating "bias" is difficult because most people have a confirmation bias.

How can you know what is biased if you DON'T have an unbiased ruler? One has to be extremely informed about a certain part of the world to know if a journalist or media outlet is biased towards it.

Bias is much more common in international news because major media relies on regional freelancers that tend to be loyal to various causes.

In Kashmir, many BBC freelancers sympathize with LeT. In Gaza, most BBC freelancers work under the auspices of Hamas. In Chechnya, hardly any media exists because it is not allowed. Same in Pakistan.

For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, virtually all media is embedded within the military. Journalists are typically shut out during on-going operations, so they're stuck with whatever NATO/US/British spokesperson tells them.

Bias in domestic media is far more easier to evaluate because there is so much scrutiny and pressure groups...
 
Bowfinger said:
I brought this up the last time you linked this study, but naturally you disappeared. Let me try it again.

Do you actually read your own links, or did you just accept some wing-nut blog's word for it when they told you what this study shows? I ask because it doesn't show what you claim it shows. I strongly suspect you would gag on its findings if you actually read and understood them.
Click to expand...

1lead.png


Just look at the graph and tell me which one is more "balanced"

(note: I never said there was no bias simply that the "bias" is center right which is main stream in America)
 
Patranus said:
(note: I never said there was no bias simply that the "bias" is center right which is main stream in America)
Click to expand...
The subject question was "Least biased news sources?"

Your one sentence answer was "Fox News according to a Pew study."

The Pew study said exactly the opposite.

And that bar chart you linked is misleading in a few ways. The question wasn't "which is less biased, MSNBC or Fox News?" Also, negative stories will be written about the loser and positive ones about the winner. That's just the way it normally goes.

And if you wanted to judge how biased a news source might be, you could compare how they reported against everyone else, say by comparing the bar chart you posted against the one in the other study you linked. Which one looks the most different from what everyone else reporting?
1_lead_image2.png


Finally to go back to the original question, I like hitting an aggregator like Google News and reading a couple sources. I'm quite fond of CS Monitor too for their reliance on reporters to report the news instead of relying on wire services like everyone else seems to do nowadays.
 
Last edited:
If you have to watch it instead of reading it you aren't going to get unbiased News. As for Cable and Broadcast News MSNBC and Fox are absolutely the worse.
 
Red Dawn said:
If you have to watch it instead of reading it you aren't going to get unbiased News. As for Cable and Broadcast News MSNBC and Fox are absolutely the worse.
Click to expand...


Problem is their ratings keep going up the worse they get. CNN has moved as hard center as they can, since so many say thats what they want. Their ratings, down.
 
Marlin1975 said:
Problem is their ratings keep going up the worse they get. CNN has moved as hard center as they can, since so many say thats what they want. Their ratings, down.
Click to expand...
Well they may say that's what the want but Faux Noises ratings suggest the opposite. Like Jack Nicholson's Character said in the Movie A Few Good Men "You can't handle the truth" you being those who get their news from Broadcast or Cable TV.
 
Kappo said:
I'm kind of looking for some news sources where I can't say "Neocon" or "Libtard" in the first paragraph of reading. So, where do you get your news?
Click to expand...
And don't forget "Teabagger"...it amazes me how much I see this derogatory term used in our 'unbiased' MSM.
 
HumblePie said:
They used it because that is what the original people of the movement called themselves before they realized it was a derogatory term.
Click to expand...


Hey don;t try and bring facts into this "all news but fox is left..."... Doc Savage Fan does not know better, other than what his biased sources tell him.
 
L00PY said:
I'm quite fond of CS Monitor too for their reliance on reporters to report the news instead of relying on wire services like everyone else seems to do nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think Christian Science Monitor is probably the least biased I've seen...they do a damn good job of news reporting IMO.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Here is an excellent primer on bias in the media.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18458_6-subtle-ways-news-media-disguises-bullshit-as-fact.html

It does not say who is "fair and balanced" but offers something far more important. It's an essay on bullshit.

Cow feces are independent of ideology, however there is bias in almost every story. Why? Because news is business, therefore it has certain goals, like making money.

Objective reporting is a scarce commodity. At least know when you are being scammed.
Click to expand...
I don't even mind the bias so much as the outright errors. Media will confidently tell you one thing, then an hour later tell you something completely different without ever saying "Hey, we were just pulling things out of our asses an hour ago to fill some time" or explaining why the story has changed. If there's no disclaimer, why would I think this hour's version is more accurate than the last hour's version? And the only two times I've been close to a news story the media's reportage bore strikingly little resemblance to what actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top