Least biased news sources?

[Vette73]

Seriously? You have a link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8&feature=player_embedded

Here is one, but its a "making fun..." of them type thing. It does have some talking about teabagging them before they teabag us type comments.

I have seen videos where the people were saying things like we are the tea baggers of the tea party and swinging tea bags around. I don't see many tea bags anymore now. :awe:

 

[zsdersw]

The Onion

This.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it's wise to trust what Sarah tells you.

Palin is Hot Speaker; Obama is Dear Leader. Please get those straight.

 

[Red Dawn]

Palin is Hot Speaker; Obama is Dear Leader. Please get those straight.

Sorry, need to brush up on my Wingnut Speak.()

 

[Red Dawn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8&feature=player_embedded

Here is one, but its a "making fun..." of them type thing. It does have some talking about teabagging them before they teabag us type comments.

I have seen videos where the people were saying thing liek we are the tea baggers of the tea party and swinging tea bags around. I don't see many tea bags anymore now. :awe:

Ehh, not really.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Sorry, need to brush up on my Wingnut Speak.()

Obama = Totus or Dear Leader or Messiah
Palin = When you don't have any reasonable argument to make against conservatives you throw her name out.

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama = Totus or Dear Leader or Messiah
Palin = When you don't have any reasonable argument to make against conservatives you throw her name out.

Lol, she is a reasonable argument against conservatives, especially the Wingnuts that embrace her.

 

[Descartes]

NPR without question. For perhaps no other reason than the fact that they talk about *news* around the world, not opinion/perspective bullshit.

CNN probably second. I don't know why people think CNN is so bad, but I've always felt their discussion panels were even and civil.

Absolute worst is Fox. Even the morning news shows are terrible. Everyone feels the need to express their ideological view as fact. Commentators will regurgitate a story and then spend a minute or two ranting about why it should/shouldn't be that way. I don't like my news this way.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Lol, she is a reasonable argument against conservatives, especially the Wingnuts that embrace her.

Socialists like you would say that.

 

[nick1985]

Absolute worst is Fox. Even the morning news shows are terrible. Everyone feels the need to express their ideological view as fact. Commentators will regurgitate a story and then spend a minute or two ranting about why it should/shouldn't be that way. I don't like my news this way.

How do you feel about MSNBC? Do their commentators express their ideological views as fact?

 

[theevilsharpie]

NPR without question. For perhaps no other reason than the fact that they talk about *news* around the world, not opinion/perspective bullshit.

I think the biggest reason that NPR and other broadcast networks don't seem as biased in their coverage as the cable news networks is that they aren't broadcasting 24/7. They don't have fill dead time with opinion/commentary/debate shows like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News do.

 

[Patranus]

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.

Huh?
The data was taken from before the election.

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?

Why would you compare it to what the industry does?
What is comparable is the treatment they give different groups. If the industry as a whole throws one group under the bus consistently while a rogue station reports differently, does it mean that the rogue station is bias?

No.

 

[L00PY]

Yes, but the underperformer / person trailing in the polls generally loses, hence more negative stories written about the loser before the loss. If they weren't screwing up, they'd get more positive stories written about them. A gaffe leads to a negative story. A brilliant speech leads to a positive one.

You'd compare it to the industry as a whole, because the difference between the expected result and what you see is one measure of bias.

Say a scandal breaks for a group. The industry as a whole will throw the group under the bus. If one station doesn't follow suit, and instead continues with the same mix of positive and negative stories, by failing to trend negative like everyone else, they're showing a positive bias. The converse holds true too -- if a group does something extremely positive and noteworthy, you'd expect to see in increase in positive stories, not for the same old, same old.

 

[Kappo]

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.

I'll give you an "insider tip". You can THINK they are center. But behind the scenes, that is not the intended nor stated goal.

 

[Carmen813]

The Daily Show.

Oh wait...least biased.

Uhh...the onion.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, but the underperformer / person trailing in the polls generally loses, hence more negative stories written about the loser before the loss. If they weren't screwing up, they'd get more positive stories written about them. A gaffe leads to a negative story. A brilliant speech leads to a positive one.

You'd compare it to the industry as a whole, because the difference between the expected result and what you see is one measure of bias.

Say a scandal breaks for a group. The industry as a whole will throw the group under the bus. If one station doesn't follow suit, and instead continues with the same mix of positive and negative stories, by failing to trend negative like everyone else, they're showing a positive bias. The converse holds true too -- if a group does something extremely positive and noteworthy, you'd expect to see in increase in positive stories, not for the same old, same old.

Agreed. Using the reportage over that campaign as an indicator of broader bias is a very poor metric. The fact is, even most conservatives agree that Obama ran a very tight campaign, with very few gaffes and missteps, and McCain ran a very rough and inconsistent campaign. If anything, Fox is showing a bias with relatively equal numbers on positive, negative and neutral. The objective of news is not to present even amounts of positive versus negative; it is actually to reflect reality.

This doesn't mean I don't think MSN has a left bias, because clearly it does. Overall, the findings of the Pew study that Fox and MSN pretty much mirror each others bias seems pretty accurate based on my experience with each.

Patranus is using a very narrow metric to make a much broader point, and he's ignoring the broader finding of the very study he cites.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Yeah pretty much this.

I think ideologues on the right and left imagine media conspiracies to sway public opinion toward one ideological viewpoint, when in fact the bias is at once more subtle and more obvious: media is corporate and it's out to make money by whatever means possible. That sways media coverage in ways that are usually less obvious to ordinary viewers than the outright left/right biases, which are hardly even disguised in places like Fox and MSN. Even where certain news outlets do display such outright political bias, they are simply targetting a demographic, the way TV shows target specific demographics. In the media, bias in all its forms = profit.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Yes, people tend to assume that in spite of biases, the media generally tends to get it's facts right. However, the amount of factual error can be quite shocking sometimes. Often the error is leaving out crucial facts because of the need to compress everything into soundbites and quick reads. Science related reportage is particularly awful. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen a new "study" of something reported in the media, only to google the study itself and discovery that the article gives a woeful misimpression of the study's true findings, or even what the study is really about. Often, the article will seize on a narrow aspect of it because it seems newsworthy (i.e. "sexy"), and the article will rip that narrow aspect totally out of context.

In general, people need to be very cautious with media reportage and find primary sources whenever available. That's the one positive thing about the internet, that often those tools are available for the non-lazy.

- wolf

 

[Descartes]

How do you feel about MSNBC? Do their commentators express their ideological views as fact?

I neglected to point out MSNBC, because I honestly don't watch it at all. So, perhaps they do. I don't care about *who* does it and I'm not here to demonize Fox news. It's just that Fox has the most popular commentators in political media today and thus I listen to them.

A little journalistic integrity would be nice, but it's not sexy and it doesn't sell.

 

[Descartes]

The Daily Show.

Oh wait...least biased.

Uhh...the onion.

The Daily Show is at least honest. I don't mind shows like these because they are very clearly for entertainment value, very clearly biased and presenting a viewpoint that the hosts share.

It's the news channels that purport to be unbiased and present objective truth that destroy the fabric of what drives change in this country.

 

[Descartes]

I think the biggest reason that NPR and other broadcast networks don't seem as biased in their coverage as the cable news networks is that they aren't broadcasting 24/7. They don't have fill dead time with opinion/commentary/debate shows like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News do.

Well, I listen to NPR any time I want on satellite, but whether that's prior broadcasts or not I have no idea.

I don't agree about filling the dead time though. I'm not concerned about someone expressing an opinion, because healthy debate is what gets us answers. What concerns me is that they blend the two, and they throw in a dose of histrionics and innuendo to drive an agenda. It's like Political Idol, and it's a terrible embarrassment to the democratic process.

 

[heyheybooboo]

NPR and The News Hour --- Jim Lehrer (and staff) do a good job asking the right questions and getting a complete story - generally from 'both' sides.

and FrontLine, for topical documentaries which cut through the BS, talking points and 'revisionist' history.




--

 

[StageLeft]

So seems most people see those sources as something want to back up their beliefs not get "news".

Basically.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How do you feel about MSNBC? Do their commentators express their ideological views as fact?

This Barnicle guy (MSNBC contributor) seems to be quite 'objective' and 'factual'.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...ears-john-mccain-more-afraid-j-d-hayworth-nor

MSNBC's Mike Barnicle Smears John McCain: More Afraid of J.D. Hayworth Than of North Vietnamese​

During a discussion of John McCain's drift rightward on Wednesday's Morning Joe, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle smeared the Arizona Senator as more scared of Republican primary challenger J.D. Hayworth than he was of his Vietnamese torturers. Barnicle mocked, "The ultimate sadness is that, here, in the 21st century, running for re-election, he shows more fear of J.D. Hayworth than he showed toward his captors in North Vietnam." [MP3 audio available here] ​

"That is really sad," added Barnicle. At this point, the show ground to a complete stop. Seemingly stunned by the journalist's comments, co-host Mika Brzezinski sputtered, "That's- Okay. I'm just going to stay away from that. " The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart marveled, "Wow." ​

Joe Scarborough, who is supposed to be the token conservative on the liberal cable network, provided no defense of McCain. He neutrally remarked, "There's a pregnant pause. Some very tough things being said here." Scarborough continued, "And since I'm a diplomat, and I never say such things, I'm just going to go to my good friend Paul Ryan." He then moved on to a different subject and talked to the Republican Congressman.​

 

[Moonbeam]

I put on my darkest red glasses and went looking for green.