Where can I get some fscking unbiased news?

[EyeMWing]

I've just seen the last comment I *EVER* want to see by a flaming liberal on the only news program that I can get here (a local station). It was somthing to the effect of:

"With a white republican mayor, white republican governor, and white republican president, Baltimore, Maryland, and the United States in general is on the fast track to becoming a neo-nazi state."

I didn't catch who it was that said it, and quite frankly I'd like to find out who they were and take my white republican ass down to their house driving my 1977 GMC pickup and bash their face in for that crap.

Now before someone comes after me for being a racist or anything, I'm not. I'm just sick of seeing people who are supposedly 'against' racism using racism to rile up people's passions for their personal gain.

I'm also sick of every upcoming story about the war being teased as "Did George Bush lie about ______" or somthing similar that always seems to accuse him of somthing.

On the flipside, I also don't want anything blatently uber-conservative such as "Gay kid got beat up at a local school and they suspended the other student. WHY?!?!?!?"

I want some kind of online news resource that's kept fairly up to date with a lag of maybe a few hours that objectively reports on national and world news. Local news is all bullshit, and quite frankly, I don't care anymore.

Cliff notes: I want a news resource that will give me headlines like this:
'Inquiry started over Iraqi evidence'

as opposed to

'Did president Bush lie about Iraq's supposed chemical weapons'
and
'Liberals attack George Bush over proven evidence that they're covering up'

 

[conjur]

BBC

 

[TommyVercetti]

Fox News

Edit: Arabnews.com

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: conjur
BBC

Oh hell no. They were biased as hell during the war.

 

[Wallydraigle]

There is no such thing as unbiased news.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: conjur
BBC

Oh hell no. They were biased as hell during the war.

Maybe a slight anti-US bias but it was much fairer than CNN, MSNBC and esp. FOX during the war coverage.

Skynews, too.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: conjur
BBC

Oh hell no. They were biased as hell during the war.

Maybe a slight anti-US bias but it was much fairer than CNN, MSNBC and esp. FOX during the war coverage.

Skynews, too.

I think they felt it was their job to counter act any good news during the war.

 

[guapo337]

Al-Jazeera. Seriously.

A "flaming liberal" friend of mine from Europe watches Al-Jazeera for unbiased news.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: conjur
BBC

Oh hell no. They were biased as hell during the war.

Maybe a slight anti-US bias but it was much fairer than CNN, MSNBC and esp. FOX during the war coverage.

Skynews, too.

I think they felt it was their job to counter act any good news during the war.

Well, that's the Brits and their lackluster lifestyle

 

[ed21x]

Even with a liberal slant, CNN still seems to give the highest quality news and coverage of all. After watching that, make sure to tune into Fox news to balance it out.

 

[civad]

Reuters. Usually They just REPORT .
They dont include their OPINIONS with the news.

 

[Hammer]

foxnews

 

[tcsenter]

William Safire on the BBC:

On my return to the lists after vacation, let me animadvert on the swelling chorus of handwringing failuremongers. In Britain, for example, the BBC was recently revealed to have "sexed up" a story that accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of having "sexed up" a prewar intelligence report about Saddam's weaponry. When the anti-Blair, antiwar BBC learned of its reporter's exaggeration, it refused to correct his inflammatory story lest it appear to be caving in to government pressure. One board member claimed truth in reporting to be "less important" than an image of fearlessness.

- "The Failuremongers", The New York Times

IOW, truth is less important than muck-raking for the sake of muck-raking. Michael Moore should inquire with the BBC about a position as a journalist, I'm sure they would love to have him aboard.

Where can I get some fscking unbiased news?

There is no one source from which one should derive all their perspective and information. Even if you find a heroically moderate and balanced source today, that doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. The only certainty is uncertainty...and taxes...and death.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lirion
There is no such thing as unbiased news.

Yep, but that said NPR

 

[DougK62]

I agree with Reuters. CNN and Fox are both decent too.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lirion
There is no such thing as unbiased news.

Yep, but that said NPR

Two words:

Juan Williams

Never saw such a biased newsperson than him during the 2000 election.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: civad
Reuters. Usually They just REPORT .
They dont include their OPINIONS with the news.

I honestly don't think you are going to find a completely unbiased news source. For example, Reuters refuses to call Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists. Why? Because, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I'm sorry, but if they target civilians on buses, in cafes, and on the street then they are using terrorist tactics which makes them terrorists.

Edit: I should say, news organization will be blatantly biased on some subjects while not on others.

 

[civad]

originally posted by: Qeasy

Originally posted by: civad
Reuters. Usually They just REPORT .
They dont include their OPINIONS with the news.

I honestly don't think you are going to find a completely unbiased news source. For example, Reuters refuses to call Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists. Why? Because, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I'm sorry, but if they target civilians on buses, in cafes, and on the street then they are using terrorist tactics which makes them terrorists.

Edit: I should say, news organization will be blatantly biased on some subjects while not on others.

I didnt imply that Reuters was unbiased. It's just that they usually report without any opinions. Thats my observation, atleast.
And I don't care about anyone calling any terrorist a 'liberator' or a 'freedom fighter' or simply a SOB . And I think anybody who is incapable of seeing it for him/herself who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter is an idiot.


p.s: I almost read Qeasy as Qusay.

 

[Feldenak]

If you involve a human, there will always be some bias.

What I suggest is access as many different news outlets as you have time for (CNN, BBC, Fox, MSNBC, etc...)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lirion
There is no such thing as unbiased news.

Yep, but that said NPR

Two words:

Juan Williams

Never saw such a biased newsperson than him during the 2000 election.

Every so often, you get that. On the whole, the depth of story is unequalled and quite fair. COMPLETELY unbiased? No, just like lirion said, but they at least base their programming on real events and real interviews unlike the 30 second dumbed down cable snippets.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

unbiased news = you being there and witnessing the event yourself

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

Just like neutralizing acid and bases in chemistry, both of which can scald severely, just watch both the liberal and conservative ponts of view and decide for yourself. Don't let anyone stuff your mouth full of.. whatever they want to stuff it with.

YOU be the judge.

 

[Fudssa]

Check out Anandtech's Politics and News forum.

 

[TwiceOver]

Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Fox News

Also a fan of FNC.

 

[shopbruin]

read the economist?