where's the best place to go to get unbiased information regarding politics?

[pcgeek11]

Everybody is biased in some way.... Everybody!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Not going to get into bias -- that's a book right there.

 

[MrColin]

America's only news source, www.theonion.com

 

[shira]

Righties always say that the best newspapers in the country - NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times - have a "liberal bias" because responsible, unbiased journalism typically reveals how intellectually bankrupt right-wing politics is.

Think of it this way: Pretty much every responsible, unbiased history of WWII Germany reports that Hitler and the Nazi party were monsters. Or do mainstream historians just have an anti-Nazi bias?

 

[Zebo]

Hard to say. Many act un biased but leave out information whether they do so through ignorance or not fitting their world view is hard to say but it presents difficulty for viewer who has a life. My best advice is take all inputs you can, form an opinion yourself based on logic and philosophical leanings and run with it, adjust as necessary. Like anything, if you want to be a good political thinker, it takes work sorry to say. I know about .0000001% of what's out there, if that so it's lifetimes work.

Why you think religion is so popular? People who want total explanation of the universe and regulation of life. Easy & Lazy. Be careful don't get sucked into one world view or one caster if you want to be a thinking man..

 

[Zebo]

Righties always say that the best newspapers in the country - NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times - have a "liberal bias" because responsible, unbiased journalism typically reveals how intellectually bankrupt right-wing politics is.

Think of it this way: Pretty much every responsible, unbiased history of WWII Germany reports that Hitler and the Nazi party were monsters. Or do mainstream historians just have an anti-Nazi bias?

All corporate media are economically conservative. It's in their interest since they are rich. For example check out this "solve the deficit chart" story from today
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I see nothing there about raising capital gains where owners and sponsors of NYT get their money. I see nothing about applying SS to all forms of income or removing cap which would raise 500B alone.

Socially they are as liberal as crowd they cater to. That just filler and sells stuff. Best to have stories people want to hear.

 

[Craig234]

The thing with 'bias' is that pretty much any issue with any opinion - even if one is 'right' and one is 'wrong' - is attacked as 'bias' if it doesn't treat each equally.

Is being anti-slavery 'biased'? What if this were during slavery, and you said 'slavery is wrong'?

Well, you're just 'one side' of the issue, and anything that doesn't treat the pro-slavery crowd with just as much time and respect as your position is 'biased'.

When something gets enough consensus, the media can side with one side and not have the public have a problem with it, the funny things is they're often wrong, too.

The 'consensus' on Vietnam an 'unbised' source would have is a lot different than the 'consensus' later. Or with Clinton's finance industry deregulation.

You want opinion. Without that you don't get 'Vietnam is bad' or 'good'. You get 'there are x men and y American casualties and z Vietnamese casualties and people said things.'

Reading from someone who has been to Vietnam and provides informed commentary that has opinion, is the most important thing for you to read.

It's up to you to separate the right from the wrong, which isn't as hard when you learn about who has different motives (see my sig for better things).

'Bias' is a mountain out of a molehill - it's a lazy way of attacking opponents without proving your point. It's very real, with 'paid for' opinion, with the propaganda machine and the industry paid to push a view, but even that's not best described as 'bias'. Things you agree with, it's hard to see 'bias' in as well.

This is a reason change is hard - the civil rights movement seemed radical, communist, threatening to people who were used to 'how America had always been'. Anyone for the civil rights movement could be easily viewed as 'biased' - and vice versa by 'the other side'.

Is the radical right who are pushing an agenda to put the US back a century 'biased'? Are those who expose that agenda and criticize it 'biased'? You have to decide.

Save234

 

[dank69]

All corporate media are economically conservative. It's in their interest since they are rich. For example check out this "solve the deficit chart" story from today
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I see nothing there about raising capital gains where owners and sponsors of NYT get their money.

Under Existing Taxes, 2nd section, Investment Taxes. Obama's Plan increases revenue by $10B/$24B, while returning to Clinton-era levels raises revenue by $32B/$46B.

I see nothing about applying SS to all forms of income or removing cap which would raise 500B alone.

Under Existing Taxes, 3rd section, 3rd option, Payroll tax. Raises revenue by $50B/$100B.

Socially they are as liberal as crowd they cater to. That just filler and sells stuff. Best to have stories people want to hear.

Perhaps your bias is blinding you?

 

[trenchfoot]

Not going to get into bias -- that's a book right there.

There's a side of me that's shared that point of view for the longest time, in the sense that a whole lot more truth comes out of Comedy Central and a whole lot more comedic nonsense comes out of Fox.

Amen? ()

 

[dmcowen674]

see topic

Fox News

Everybody knows this

 

[crashtestdummy]

National:
PBS NewsHour
New York Times
Politifact (a decent way to sort through the pile of rhetoric)

International:
BBC (though it seems to be slowly going the way of CNN)
The Economist (certainly has an agenda, but does a very good job of laying out the facts)

 

[Phokus]

Fox News, DUH - Tea Party idiot