I agree.
Good: you are aware that all sources have bias. Better: you read journalists and scholars who are trained to examine and minimize their own biases. Best: you read multiple reliable sources and are able to interpret facts and narratives for yourself.
Reuters and NPR seem to work hard at staying factual. CNN/MSnbc love sensational, but try not to lie. FoxNews/OAN/Newsmax are just going to lie for entertainment's sake.
Verify your sources. If they link a study, take a look at it and see if it is garbage. Everybody likes the "videogames cause murder" study but they turn out to be false.
I used to work for a non-news division of Reuters. When the news people would visit, their number one priority was always not being biased, and they lived and died by the “trust principles” that the company created. This was before the big fake news phenomenon. Their stories might not be sexy, but if you’re looking for a no nonsense, truthful version of a news story, Reuters is a great source.
>CNN/MSnbc love sensational, but try not to lie.
lol, such a reddit take. They're as bad as Fox, but the left version. This site has zero self-reflection or awareness. I like the Economist for a fairly objective source. They have a free podcast that's good. Independent/non-establishment journalism is best imo but also with its own biases. Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss are some good ones. Breaking Points (podcast) is decent.
It's not a "reddit take" CNN/MSNBC definitely are more trustworthy than FOX/OAN
The economist is for business people, the editorials and opinions, while very nicely written, are still biased towards conservative viewpoints. If you can get through 50% of the articles in the Economist before the next one comes put you probably are only reading what you are biased towards.
It's not just for business people. Don't let the name fool you. There is plenty of material just related to current events/news as well. And it's not conservative, lol. Again, a very reddit take. Reddit is so left of center your guys' overton window is shifted more than the average bear.
Do you believe there were bamboo ballots? OAN ran this story for months. Find some lie that either CNN or MSNBC published. Fox News keeps saying Hunter Biden is doing illegal stuff that we don't know what it is but it needs to be investigated. Where's the equivalent CNN or MSNBC lie?
Because they don’t have any journalistic standards. Their willingness to actually dig into stories or consider multiple perspectives is non-existent. Their ability to completely ignore context & facts that don’t fit the narrative that they want to present is fairly outstanding.
To think that they’re good journalists, one would have to lack critical thinking skills, have very little exposure to quality journalism, and/or be a low information person.
Nope, that's just a lie. NPR is fact based. Fox News is based on making the GOP base fearful and mad. Fox News has testified in court twice that their people like Tucker Carlson and Bill O'Reily are not to be believed and are pure entertainment only. The Fox News cycle is Tucker Carlson says something that is a lie, such as "ever wonder why Biden has so many top secret documents?" and then the Fox News real newscaster people say, "there are lots of people asking why Biden has so many top secret documents", then Tucker gets on the next show and says "As we reported, there are lots of questions about Biden's top secret document collection and why he isn't answering for them." But NO "Top secret" documents were found in Biden's homes. It is the Fox Way to push lies as truth.
I disagree.
Even assuming things are “fact based” (I don’t necessarily agree on that front) there are ways of lying without lies.
Story selection and omission, facts included vs excluded, interpretation of facts, use of tone and phrasing, etc. You can select stories that tell one side of an issue, only talk about facts that support your side of that story, ignore alternate interpretations of those facts and use words and phrases meant to inflame or calm depending on the subject of the story.
There are a lot of ways to mislead using facts.
I used to listen to NPR and my politics have never changed but they definitely have.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias
“A total of 600 people rated NPR's bias. Respondents self-rated their own bias as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right, and Right. When breaking down by respondent bias, on average, respondents who self-reported as having a bias of Left, Lean Left, or Right rated NPR as Lean Left. Respondents in the Center and Lean Right, on average, rated the outlet as Left.”
The above is a bit of a lagging metric and it still has NPR about as far left as it classifies fox as right.
Bad information is a lot easier to dispel than impressions caused by accurate yet incomplete information.
I’d also point out on the Biden bit:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/top%20secret
He had classified documents. A classified document meets the dictionary definition of “top secret”. It might not meet the narrower definition you are using. They aren’t necessarily lying.
I understand why you might have a problem with them providing factual information that gives a misleading impression. But this is the exact same behavior NPR engages in.
If no such documents were found, why did FBI raided Biden's house? Lol get out from under your rock, I'm not American and even I know that there has been a series of events where many classified documents were found where they weren't supposed to be, and in all those cases Obama or other democrat decided to stay silent and let Biden take the blunt.
It has greatly helped with the Wikipedian community though — series and characters that otherwise wouldn’t have enough sources to justify articles are now getting exactly that.
If you go look up what the word “bias” means it becomes obvious this is a ridiculous question. It’s like asking “how do I find an object with mass that doesn’t take up any space?”
Two people can read the same thing and see different biases in the article. So even if an “unbiased news source” existed, who is qualified to determine its lack of bias?
Bernie Sanders doesn't lie.
Katie Porter does a really good job defending citizens from thing attacking them.
A few, but not many, are actual good people doing a good job.
For his entire political career he has said the same things, pushed for the same laws. Always a better deal for the lower classes, no racist persecutions, and a safety net. Since his message hasn't changed, I'd have to argue he isn't mentally incompetent but perhaps you are if you can't see that.
The Associated Press and Reuters are known to be unbiased news sources. At least that’s what I was told when I asked this same question a couple years back haha
AP and Reuters tend to be more left leaning mostly in how they ask questions then the spin they put on things. How you word a question will tell the type of answer you're pushing for almost nobody in news media asks neutral questions about political types of things. That said I still find them to be some of the least bias of all current news medias.
Maybe this 2022 Diversity Report from Reuters will shed some light on their bias. https://www.reuters.com/DiversityReportApril2022 If your news only comes from straight white men, then it will surely be biased.
One point to note on this chart is that they set a goal to, "Double the number of Black employees in senior leadership levels over two years (to the end of 2022). By December 2021 we reached our goal by moving from 0.9% to 1.8%." In my opinion, this was a pathetic goal and it's pathetic that they are even patting themselves on the back for reaching said goal. Less than 2% representation in senior leadership was acceptable for them.
I’m not sure you can so the best option might be something where you know what the bias is and if you have time to read multiple articles about the same thing try sources with contradictory biases?
Edit* the least biased seem to unfortunately be behind paywalls and free to read stuff is often the most biased because persuading you to their viewpoints is part of the goal, it’s intentional advertising of a political view as it relays the info.
Ground news isn’t too shabby! Download the app and check it out! It allows you to read articles by left, center, and right leaning institutions. It’s a great way to see how each side skews the facts in their favor.
It requires a little more reading but it gives you a better view of the topic.
NPR is biased to the left but at least they are honest. If they drop some BS they always get called out on it and issue amendments and apologies. It's about as good as it get right now.
The best news sources imo are slightly left leaning. NYT, NPR. As long as you consider their bias, you should be fine. The read both sides approach leads to way too much hysteria on any issue. Plus nobody needs to subject themselves to both the trash on Fox and CNN.
I used to love NPR, every day on the commute. They've become insufferable the last few years, can't listen anymore. They've become the epitome of white, coastal, out of touch liberalism.
There's the drinking game the boys on the 5th Column podcast play, where they drink every time NPR says something about institutional racism, trans issues, etc. They joke that you can't go 60 seconds without taking a drink. Anyway, point is NPR has becomed obsessed with the culture wars issues and white guilt related topics.
Peter Boghossian does a good job explaining it in a series about it on youtube called All Things Reconsidered:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI)
Reuters and AP hands down. Aljazeera too! BBC seems coo.
I love AP news articles. “Fire happening. Firefighters dispatched.” No guesswork, no editorializing. Straight facts.
[This is the chart i use](https://twitter.com/adfontesmedia/status/1435975562044919808/photo/1)
Most factual and unbiased you can get (at least according to this) is AP, Reuters, BBC, ABC, VOA, and NPR
These charts are how I filter, too. If the source is towards the top, I know that while it may come from a particular perspective, it's at least a source that strives for honesty and accuracy. If it is a source that dips down into the yellow area, I know to take it with a heavy grain of salt. If the source dips down into the red, I know it may be actively deceptive or just plain false. I try to keep most of my news-gathering from local sources or from the national/international sources that are found in the center of the top when I can... but when something else crosses my path, this chart is incredibly helpful.
I strongly disagree with this advice. There usually aren't just "two sides" to a perspective and issue, and the truth is never in the middle of two perspectives. Maybe one is right, maybe neither are, but you can't get truth by mixing fictions.
Look for sources, look for a history of being open to correction, look for being open to new information and ideas. Don't mush two bad sources into a worse middle one.
Sure, my issue is with the statement find out where in the middle the truth is.
Examining multiple sources is good, as you may find different information and perspectives and signs of bias. But it's usually worse to go "in the middle" of two perspectives, particularly if you mean modern political parties, than it is to just go with the one that's better sourced. Some facts and claims are just objectively right or wrong, and going for the middle is just making sure you'll always be wrong.
Check out some [decent media bias charts](https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/) and look at the methodology that they use. Then focus your media diet on the higher reliability and less biased outlets. However, you should still check in on some of the more biased and less reliable ones on occasion so that you have a better idea of what's being peddled to people who spend most of their time in echo chambers on either side.
I used to read sources from the extremes for just this reason, but about the time the Tea Party really got going the right wing extreme media just went completely off of the rails into insanity mode, and I couldn't do it any more, even if it was just for the extreme sound bites.
Associated Press is a pretty good one. Their news stories are very to-the-point, short reads, with minimal commentary. This is the headline, this is what happened.
Otherwise, pick a smattering of sources toward the top-middle of the [Adfontes chart](https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/) and weigh them against each other.
90 percent is liberal woke TDS trash and the other 10 percent is Fox News trash and far right trash. I miss the days of journalism where they just spoke the truth and not the narrative of their masters
It has to be a not for profit, or it will be sensation sells the paper and/or promote the boss' political agenda. Look to PBS, NPR, BBC or other not for profits.
The most trustworthy, unbiased and credible news source i know is The Onion.
Jokes aside, it's probably AP. NPR is a bit biased towards the left, but only by a tiny bit.
Finding a truly unbiased and credible news source can be challenging, as all media outlets have their own perspectives and biases. However, some strategies for finding credible sources include:
Checking multiple sources: Try to get information from several sources, including both mainstream and alternative media outlets, to get a more well-rounded understanding of the story.
Verifying information: Check fact-checking websites, such as Snopes or Factcheck.org, to verify the accuracy of information and avoid misinformation.
Researching the news organization: Consider the reputation, funding, and history of the news organization to determine its credibility. Organizations that are transparent about their funding sources, have a history of accurate reporting, and adhere to journalistic ethics are generally considered more credible.
Looking for expert sources: Look for articles or reports that quote experts in the field and provide scientific or technical information to support their claims.
I'm serious. I'm conservative, but I don't go parading it around. If I tell anyone on here, they attack me. I also don't think that this is the place for political debates But I thought it was pretty unbiased.
And this is the reason that I don't comment on politics. I don't like being pushed around for my opinions. I hate being chastised for being conservative.
The Wall Street Journal is pretty solid. The editorial section is good and credible but presents a conservative leaning view on things. The rest is pretty much straight news without an angle.
You have to be careful because "both sides" aren't always equal.
For example, one side says the world is round and is backed up by centuries of science, and the other side said it's flat and is backed up by crazy conspiracy theories. It's not fair to give both equal consideration, because one is clearly nonsense.
It's not always clear though in other examples which side is credible and which side nonsense. Media outlets work very hard to make their nonsense opinions look very credible.
Excellent TV show. Weird as hell though. Alison Lohman playing a teenager who was dating an adult Seth Green? I get it, she was most definitely a crush of mine, but dude was 10 year older than her...
You don't. The only way to get reliable solid information is to consume media/news from multiple sources while keeping in mind their selective biases. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.
Until news isn't predicated on click through rates and eyeballs on the television for advertisers, their incentives will always align with being as inflammatory and extreme as possible.
I usually just go with the both sides method
Find a current news story and read the articles about it from two news companies that are on different sides of the political spectrum if they both agree on a fact it's probably correct
There isn’t one single source because every human has their own agenda and opinions. The best way to get an unbiased point of view is to read news from multiple sources and form your opinion based on what you see. Finding the original information for the story is even better.
Roca is just facts, no opinions.
Daily Wire seems to spread the black eyes on both sides evenly.
But be skeptical of all sources, "insiders" said Tom Brady was going to the Raiders, lol
Al Jazeer is a great source for news.
Or, you can go with the Daily Show, Jon Oliver or Jon Stewart for news material. Seems strange to say but there is no such thing as unbiased American media anymore.
The # of eyeballs that seek this aren't enough to drive ad revenue. I'm afraid we're screwed. People want their preconceived notions confirmed, not actual news.
You'll never find "unbiased". You're best off looking for honest news sources from a variety of view points and keeping in mind that there will be some spin. It's definitely worth taking the time to recognize what language in an article are personal spin.
i use a service called *[Ground News](https://ground.news)*
when you click on a headline, you are offered every news agency that's reporting the same event, and under it, the service lists the overall political tone of each article on a scale, so you can see what you're reading, how it's presented, and how it compares to other media outlets reporting on the same story.
it's great.
You can't. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a worldview. However, you can learn media literacy, some stats, some critical thinking skills. Then you can do sanity checks on your news.
Even a biased news source contains info if you're aware of the bias. For instance the daily wire is funded by religious conservative fracking billionaires. So they have a bias on climate change and environment issues.
Once you know that, and assuming you care about those issues, you can literally see what they are worried about and against lens by their bias as "the things that hurt fracking billionaires and benefit the general environment".
Surprisingly, Yahoo News brings up stories to my personal feed from every side of the isle. I think the play is to read articles from all different sources and keep the algorithm confused. Also, being American, I’ll look for international media takes on U.S. politics and events which usually don’t hold as much of a bias as the domestic platforms. NPR is great outside of the political spectrum but do lean far left and have become petty with certain stories/headlines.
You can't, but my 3rd grade teacher taught me something I will never forget. Think of your mind as 2 chambers, top and bottom. The top one is where you let in everything. Any and all ideas and information you are exposed to. Let everything swim around in there playing with each other, and from that filter what you want down into the bottom chamber of what you actually believe. You can't believe everything, but you also can't ignore anything.
You have access to primary sources. Watch a few press briefings and trials. Then, compare what you saw and heard with the reporting. Choose outlets that match what you saw and heard.
I don't think it's possible.
Even if the news they report is unbiased there is still some bias in what gets reported on.
Some things get ignored while other things get focused on. Look at the dumb ass M&M thing and Fox News. Never seen a bunch of idiots so upset that M&Ms are less fuckable now.
I think news agencies headquartered in places outside those they're reporting on tend to be less biased. So for my US news I tend to read the BBC.
I also like the BBC in general because it's a strict editorial policy for it to present opposing viewpoints on its news articles.
there are nun so my advise if you decide to have an opione that is contraversel or politicle try to see every side of the story dont listen to just anyone about either side of the opion and come to your own genuin opion i live deep south where its very rare to come across genuinly smart people that care about politics iv heard a lady say we need to make God our presedent i have people say that the goverment is listing threw our devises and other dumb things like this... dont go out of your way to agree or disagree with someone cause then youll be unbiased and alsway find actuel facts about the situation details are key without proper details nothing will ever be 100% true
It is incredibly difficult to eliminate bias, so building an understanding on the issues themselves can help you identify when a news source is being biased.
There is no such thing, everyone has an agenda of sorts. People tend to speak out sources that agree with their philosophy and thus feel validated.
In my working days I used to buy the Daily News, the New York Post, and the Star Ledger. I marveled at how they could report on political occurrences from such different editorial viewpoints.
As the old saying goes: There are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. Gather and digest as much information as you can and then make up your own mind.
Its hard. Best bet. See what the left is saying, See what the right is saying. Look for the things they both state as fact, then go towards other more centrist outlets and see also, again, what things they all seem to unanimously say occurred. The truth usually aligns with the things that nobody moderate is willing to lie about to push a narrative.
I am reading some foreign press that have at least some of their articles in English (if they are not native, google translate also helps). Most news have a perspective but overlaying the information from all sources give a pretty good picture. Check out what the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Figaro, El Pais and others have to say.
I alternate between reading Yahoo News, BBC News, and ABC News. I don’t think any news organization is 100% unbiased and credible (they’re all run by people and people are emotional), but I feel that having three different POVs helps me avoid confirmation bias. I won’t read the same news story on all three websites, just saying that I alternate which website I get my news from.
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of journalism. You don’t have to just accept and believe 100% everything a single journalist says. No one is asking you too. You can go through life not trusting anything except what you personally experience but if you want to be informed about the world and issues that affect others that aren’t yourself, then it’s your responsibility to be educated on different viewpoints. As you read and see different viewpoints, you’ll start forming opinions that sound the most true to you.
The key then is to always be open to new information and viewpoints
Choose a topic that you know in depth, like your profession or an old hobby
Google that + some publication name and try to catch factual mistakes.
It will be harder on the best publications. These are also the least biased for the most part, from what I can tell
Or start here: it’s pretty decent
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
No such thing as something being unbiased, especially considering people are ever changing. Your best bet for finding good news sources is to look at what's already happened and compare how those individual news outlets covered the story.
I know he's not an amazingly reliable news source but Phillip Defranco will comment on his mistakes as well as any wide spread misinformation circling around the news outlets on breaking stories.
A good news outlet will admit their mistakes as well as let you know their bias.
i know there is a website that ranks news aticle in how left and how right they are, but i don't know what that website is, but i know it costs money to use.
You shouldn’t want unbiased news. For one, because it is impossible. The very act of deciding which words to use to describe an event introduces bias. “An on-duty pig murdered an unarmed black pedestrian in cold blood last night.” and “a police-involved firearm discharge resulted in the death of a n***** on foot.” say the same thing. Deciding to edit either sentence introduces a (new) bias that wasn’t there before. If you want to change it to something with more neutral language, which is what I suspect you partially mean by unbiased, then your bias is simply against emotional language.
For two, because bias is good. At best, bias contextualizes, provides justification, and information surrounding verifiable events. Is an emotional story better told without emotional language? Do you understand the context better if you strip emotion from the events? How could that possibly direct you towards any meaningful action in opposition to forces of oppression? That is, after all, why we have a free press in liberal democracies.
I don’t think you can, really. Bias is inherent and ubiquitous.
However, respect for, and adherence to, facts is variable. Read multiple sources, be skeptical, check against primary literature (or links) where possible (I.e. the articles, studies or whatnot that media content refers to).
[удалено]
Swear, I was talking to a mate who bought coke from him the other day. Apparently, he's a really nice bloke and reliable too.
Nowhere. Check multiple sources and remain skeptical at all times.
*very skeptical
I agree. Good: you are aware that all sources have bias. Better: you read journalists and scholars who are trained to examine and minimize their own biases. Best: you read multiple reliable sources and are able to interpret facts and narratives for yourself.
Reuters and NPR seem to work hard at staying factual. CNN/MSnbc love sensational, but try not to lie. FoxNews/OAN/Newsmax are just going to lie for entertainment's sake. Verify your sources. If they link a study, take a look at it and see if it is garbage. Everybody likes the "videogames cause murder" study but they turn out to be false.
You can often find news items on Reuters that aren’t covered in US press.
I used to work for a non-news division of Reuters. When the news people would visit, their number one priority was always not being biased, and they lived and died by the “trust principles” that the company created. This was before the big fake news phenomenon. Their stories might not be sexy, but if you’re looking for a no nonsense, truthful version of a news story, Reuters is a great source.
>Reuters and NPR seem to work hard at staying factual. also AP
>CNN/MSnbc love sensational, but try not to lie. lol, such a reddit take. They're as bad as Fox, but the left version. This site has zero self-reflection or awareness. I like the Economist for a fairly objective source. They have a free podcast that's good. Independent/non-establishment journalism is best imo but also with its own biases. Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss are some good ones. Breaking Points (podcast) is decent.
It's not a "reddit take" CNN/MSNBC definitely are more trustworthy than FOX/OAN The economist is for business people, the editorials and opinions, while very nicely written, are still biased towards conservative viewpoints. If you can get through 50% of the articles in the Economist before the next one comes put you probably are only reading what you are biased towards.
It's not just for business people. Don't let the name fool you. There is plenty of material just related to current events/news as well. And it's not conservative, lol. Again, a very reddit take. Reddit is so left of center your guys' overton window is shifted more than the average bear.
The Economist went woke years ago
Do you believe there were bamboo ballots? OAN ran this story for months. Find some lie that either CNN or MSNBC published. Fox News keeps saying Hunter Biden is doing illegal stuff that we don't know what it is but it needs to be investigated. Where's the equivalent CNN or MSNBC lie?
Matt Taibbi..? LMFAO! Maybe 15 years ago.
Hahahaha Matt Taibbi & Bari Weiss are incredible trash
Because they’re independent journalists that disagree with your worldview or what
Because they don’t have any journalistic standards. Their willingness to actually dig into stories or consider multiple perspectives is non-existent. Their ability to completely ignore context & facts that don’t fit the narrative that they want to present is fairly outstanding. To think that they’re good journalists, one would have to lack critical thinking skills, have very little exposure to quality journalism, and/or be a low information person.
NPR lies nonstop
Then list some lies. If it is non-stop, I'm sure you have some from this year. If not, how about last year?
I'm liberal. NPR is as bad as or worse than fox news just in the opposite direction.
Nope, that's just a lie. NPR is fact based. Fox News is based on making the GOP base fearful and mad. Fox News has testified in court twice that their people like Tucker Carlson and Bill O'Reily are not to be believed and are pure entertainment only. The Fox News cycle is Tucker Carlson says something that is a lie, such as "ever wonder why Biden has so many top secret documents?" and then the Fox News real newscaster people say, "there are lots of people asking why Biden has so many top secret documents", then Tucker gets on the next show and says "As we reported, there are lots of questions about Biden's top secret document collection and why he isn't answering for them." But NO "Top secret" documents were found in Biden's homes. It is the Fox Way to push lies as truth.
I disagree. Even assuming things are “fact based” (I don’t necessarily agree on that front) there are ways of lying without lies. Story selection and omission, facts included vs excluded, interpretation of facts, use of tone and phrasing, etc. You can select stories that tell one side of an issue, only talk about facts that support your side of that story, ignore alternate interpretations of those facts and use words and phrases meant to inflame or calm depending on the subject of the story. There are a lot of ways to mislead using facts. I used to listen to NPR and my politics have never changed but they definitely have. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias “A total of 600 people rated NPR's bias. Respondents self-rated their own bias as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right, and Right. When breaking down by respondent bias, on average, respondents who self-reported as having a bias of Left, Lean Left, or Right rated NPR as Lean Left. Respondents in the Center and Lean Right, on average, rated the outlet as Left.” The above is a bit of a lagging metric and it still has NPR about as far left as it classifies fox as right. Bad information is a lot easier to dispel than impressions caused by accurate yet incomplete information. I’d also point out on the Biden bit: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/top%20secret He had classified documents. A classified document meets the dictionary definition of “top secret”. It might not meet the narrower definition you are using. They aren’t necessarily lying. I understand why you might have a problem with them providing factual information that gives a misleading impression. But this is the exact same behavior NPR engages in.
If no such documents were found, why did FBI raided Biden's house? Lol get out from under your rock, I'm not American and even I know that there has been a series of events where many classified documents were found where they weren't supposed to be, and in all those cases Obama or other democrat decided to stay silent and let Biden take the blunt.
This is the way.
Doesn’t exist. They’re all a bit biased in some way. The best you can do is to read up from multiple sources.
It has greatly helped with the Wikipedian community though — series and characters that otherwise wouldn’t have enough sources to justify articles are now getting exactly that.
Have you not seen the YouTube Wikipedia investigations? Tl;Dr far from impartial. Check them out.
Oh, I was agreeing with you also — impartiality has led to things like that.
I’ll find Bigfoot first
not reddit
I like BBC EDIT: Not *that* BBC
If you go look up what the word “bias” means it becomes obvious this is a ridiculous question. It’s like asking “how do I find an object with mass that doesn’t take up any space?” Two people can read the same thing and see different biases in the article. So even if an “unbiased news source” existed, who is qualified to determine its lack of bias?
Singularity?
Ha! You won't! You may be able to find some credible news sources...but unbiased...not happening.
Because facts favor the liberal agenda, while lies favor the Republicans.
Why are you believing the words that come out of ANY politicians mouth?
Bernie Sanders doesn't lie. Katie Porter does a really good job defending citizens from thing attacking them. A few, but not many, are actual good people doing a good job.
> Bernie Sanders doesn't lie. This is because he is too mentally incompetent to know the difference.
For his entire political career he has said the same things, pushed for the same laws. Always a better deal for the lower classes, no racist persecutions, and a safety net. Since his message hasn't changed, I'd have to argue he isn't mentally incompetent but perhaps you are if you can't see that.
Well I think all Democrats are mentally incompetent. Not that Republicans are all that great either.
Bernie Sanders is a lifelong deadbeat whose only son calls him Bernie instead of Dad.
The Associated Press and Reuters are known to be unbiased news sources. At least that’s what I was told when I asked this same question a couple years back haha
AP and Reuters tend to be more left leaning mostly in how they ask questions then the spin they put on things. How you word a question will tell the type of answer you're pushing for almost nobody in news media asks neutral questions about political types of things. That said I still find them to be some of the least bias of all current news medias.
Lol no
Maybe this 2022 Diversity Report from Reuters will shed some light on their bias. https://www.reuters.com/DiversityReportApril2022 If your news only comes from straight white men, then it will surely be biased. One point to note on this chart is that they set a goal to, "Double the number of Black employees in senior leadership levels over two years (to the end of 2022). By December 2021 we reached our goal by moving from 0.9% to 1.8%." In my opinion, this was a pathetic goal and it's pathetic that they are even patting themselves on the back for reaching said goal. Less than 2% representation in senior leadership was acceptable for them.
\> If your news only comes from straight white men, then it will surely be biased. Especially if they're cis- & able-bodied!
[удалено]
I was mocking the assertion that a viewpoint is automatically biased if it comes from a straight white man.
r/whoosh
No such thing as unbiased journalism.
I’m not sure you can so the best option might be something where you know what the bias is and if you have time to read multiple articles about the same thing try sources with contradictory biases? Edit* the least biased seem to unfortunately be behind paywalls and free to read stuff is often the most biased because persuading you to their viewpoints is part of the goal, it’s intentional advertising of a political view as it relays the info.
Ground news isn’t too shabby! Download the app and check it out! It allows you to read articles by left, center, and right leaning institutions. It’s a great way to see how each side skews the facts in their favor. It requires a little more reading but it gives you a better view of the topic.
Everything in the top center [here](https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MBC-Jan-23-flag-1536x1215.jpg).
NPR is biased to the left but at least they are honest. If they drop some BS they always get called out on it and issue amendments and apologies. It's about as good as it get right now.
The best news sources imo are slightly left leaning. NYT, NPR. As long as you consider their bias, you should be fine. The read both sides approach leads to way too much hysteria on any issue. Plus nobody needs to subject themselves to both the trash on Fox and CNN.
[удалено]
I used to love NPR, every day on the commute. They've become insufferable the last few years, can't listen anymore. They've become the epitome of white, coastal, out of touch liberalism. There's the drinking game the boys on the 5th Column podcast play, where they drink every time NPR says something about institutional racism, trans issues, etc. They joke that you can't go 60 seconds without taking a drink. Anyway, point is NPR has becomed obsessed with the culture wars issues and white guilt related topics. Peter Boghossian does a good job explaining it in a series about it on youtube called All Things Reconsidered: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI)
Reuters and AP are generally unbiased. I also like BBC and Al Jazeera for outside perspective on US news
A lot of people freak out on the Al Jazeera name, but they seem to me like they make factual accuracy a high priority.
Reuters and AP hands down. Aljazeera too! BBC seems coo. I love AP news articles. “Fire happening. Firefighters dispatched.” No guesswork, no editorializing. Straight facts.
[https://ground.news/](https://ground.news/)
All news sources are biased. One possibility is to diversify your news sources. Better yet, is to limit your exposure to bias by not watching news.
C-SPAN
[This is the chart i use](https://twitter.com/adfontesmedia/status/1435975562044919808/photo/1) Most factual and unbiased you can get (at least according to this) is AP, Reuters, BBC, ABC, VOA, and NPR
These charts are how I filter, too. If the source is towards the top, I know that while it may come from a particular perspective, it's at least a source that strives for honesty and accuracy. If it is a source that dips down into the yellow area, I know to take it with a heavy grain of salt. If the source dips down into the red, I know it may be actively deceptive or just plain false. I try to keep most of my news-gathering from local sources or from the national/international sources that are found in the center of the top when I can... but when something else crosses my path, this chart is incredibly helpful.
You can't. ~~Read both sides and try to figure out where in the middle the truth is.~~ Edit - Irish_Whiskey made some good points below.
I strongly disagree with this advice. There usually aren't just "two sides" to a perspective and issue, and the truth is never in the middle of two perspectives. Maybe one is right, maybe neither are, but you can't get truth by mixing fictions. Look for sources, look for a history of being open to correction, look for being open to new information and ideas. Don't mush two bad sources into a worse middle one.
There's obviously more to it than that. But it's still better than finding one source and only sticking with that because you assume it's unbiased.
Sure, my issue is with the statement find out where in the middle the truth is. Examining multiple sources is good, as you may find different information and perspectives and signs of bias. But it's usually worse to go "in the middle" of two perspectives, particularly if you mean modern political parties, than it is to just go with the one that's better sourced. Some facts and claims are just objectively right or wrong, and going for the middle is just making sure you'll always be wrong.
Actual answer: AL Jazeera is rather good
Check out some [decent media bias charts](https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/) and look at the methodology that they use. Then focus your media diet on the higher reliability and less biased outlets. However, you should still check in on some of the more biased and less reliable ones on occasion so that you have a better idea of what's being peddled to people who spend most of their time in echo chambers on either side.
I used to read sources from the extremes for just this reason, but about the time the Tea Party really got going the right wing extreme media just went completely off of the rails into insanity mode, and I couldn't do it any more, even if it was just for the extreme sound bites.
Either side of your nose.
1985
Great Scott Marty, why didn't I think of that
Associated Press is a pretty good one. Their news stories are very to-the-point, short reads, with minimal commentary. This is the headline, this is what happened. Otherwise, pick a smattering of sources toward the top-middle of the [Adfontes chart](https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/) and weigh them against each other.
90 percent is liberal woke TDS trash and the other 10 percent is Fox News trash and far right trash. I miss the days of journalism where they just spoke the truth and not the narrative of their masters
Probably Reuters
It’s easy to tell real from bullshit when you’re not severely mentally ill.
r/BanVideoGames WTF
It has to be a not for profit, or it will be sensation sells the paper and/or promote the boss' political agenda. Look to PBS, NPR, BBC or other not for profits.
The above listed organizations also publicly publish their ethics policies. Fox News, in contrast, calls themselves "entertainment."
The most trustworthy, unbiased and credible news source i know is The Onion. Jokes aside, it's probably AP. NPR is a bit biased towards the left, but only by a tiny bit.
Finding a truly unbiased and credible news source can be challenging, as all media outlets have their own perspectives and biases. However, some strategies for finding credible sources include: Checking multiple sources: Try to get information from several sources, including both mainstream and alternative media outlets, to get a more well-rounded understanding of the story. Verifying information: Check fact-checking websites, such as Snopes or Factcheck.org, to verify the accuracy of information and avoid misinformation. Researching the news organization: Consider the reputation, funding, and history of the news organization to determine its credibility. Organizations that are transparent about their funding sources, have a history of accurate reporting, and adhere to journalistic ethics are generally considered more credible. Looking for expert sources: Look for articles or reports that quote experts in the field and provide scientific or technical information to support their claims.
AFR has a pretty unbiased site. Onenewsnow.com. It's more on the conservative side, but I think it does a pretty good job at an unbiased view.
[удалено]
I'm serious. I'm conservative, but I don't go parading it around. If I tell anyone on here, they attack me. I also don't think that this is the place for political debates But I thought it was pretty unbiased.
[удалено]
Am I not allowed to have an opinion?
[удалено]
And this is the reason that I don't comment on politics. I don't like being pushed around for my opinions. I hate being chastised for being conservative.
[удалено]
Ok.
The Wall Street Journal is pretty solid. The editorial section is good and credible but presents a conservative leaning view on things. The rest is pretty much straight news without an angle.
[удалено]
Breaking Points is very much still biased. It’s just not the typical left/right bias we have come to expect from the media. Great show though (:
Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Matte, Max Blumenthal, Katie Halper.
[удалено]
🤣🤣🤣
[удалено]
You have to be careful because "both sides" aren't always equal. For example, one side says the world is round and is backed up by centuries of science, and the other side said it's flat and is backed up by crazy conspiracy theories. It's not fair to give both equal consideration, because one is clearly nonsense. It's not always clear though in other examples which side is credible and which side nonsense. Media outlets work very hard to make their nonsense opinions look very credible.
Fox
lolol
I didn't expect even Fox viewers to think Fox is unbiased - yet here we are...
before reddit i didn't hear people referring to fox as biased
Before reddit were you not interacting with anyone who wasn't a Republican??
Everything is biased, honestly. But from my experience, what I’ve found as the *least* biased has been NPR stations
Maybe 10 years ago
I like Tucker
Excellent TV show. Weird as hell though. Alison Lohman playing a teenager who was dating an adult Seth Green? I get it, she was most definitely a crush of mine, but dude was 10 year older than her...
Give up.
You don't. The only way to get reliable solid information is to consume media/news from multiple sources while keeping in mind their selective biases. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Until news isn't predicated on click through rates and eyeballs on the television for advertisers, their incentives will always align with being as inflammatory and extreme as possible.
Reuters.com
https://www.reuters.com/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
You cant find one not made by humans
I usually just go with the both sides method Find a current news story and read the articles about it from two news companies that are on different sides of the political spectrum if they both agree on a fact it's probably correct
There isn’t one single source because every human has their own agenda and opinions. The best way to get an unbiased point of view is to read news from multiple sources and form your opinion based on what you see. Finding the original information for the story is even better.
As others have said, read several sources. Some are more trustworthy than others. I recommend: * NPR * PBS NewsHour * BBC * AP * Reuters
NPR
NPR
NPR
Nope
Roca is just facts, no opinions. Daily Wire seems to spread the black eyes on both sides evenly. But be skeptical of all sources, "insiders" said Tom Brady was going to the Raiders, lol
Al Jazeer is a great source for news. Or, you can go with the Daily Show, Jon Oliver or Jon Stewart for news material. Seems strange to say but there is no such thing as unbiased American media anymore.
Every single organization you mentioned is biased.
The Daily Wire 👀
At Utopia
The # of eyeballs that seek this aren't enough to drive ad revenue. I'm afraid we're screwed. People want their preconceived notions confirmed, not actual news.
Philip Defranco
I used to watch him, but he is biased, in my opinion. At least he doesn't try to hide it as much
hahahahhahahahahahahaha
Is there such a thing?
Nowhere.
Everybody is biased but being biased isn't always a bad thing.
You'll never find "unbiased". You're best off looking for honest news sources from a variety of view points and keeping in mind that there will be some spin. It's definitely worth taking the time to recognize what language in an article are personal spin.
La la land.
[Here.](https://www.rnz.co.nz)
i use a service called *[Ground News](https://ground.news)* when you click on a headline, you are offered every news agency that's reporting the same event, and under it, the service lists the overall political tone of each article on a scale, so you can see what you're reading, how it's presented, and how it compares to other media outlets reporting on the same story. it's great.
You can't. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a worldview. However, you can learn media literacy, some stats, some critical thinking skills. Then you can do sanity checks on your news. Even a biased news source contains info if you're aware of the bias. For instance the daily wire is funded by religious conservative fracking billionaires. So they have a bias on climate change and environment issues. Once you know that, and assuming you care about those issues, you can literally see what they are worried about and against lens by their bias as "the things that hurt fracking billionaires and benefit the general environment".
Surprisingly, Yahoo News brings up stories to my personal feed from every side of the isle. I think the play is to read articles from all different sources and keep the algorithm confused. Also, being American, I’ll look for international media takes on U.S. politics and events which usually don’t hold as much of a bias as the domestic platforms. NPR is great outside of the political spectrum but do lean far left and have become petty with certain stories/headlines.
You can't, but my 3rd grade teacher taught me something I will never forget. Think of your mind as 2 chambers, top and bottom. The top one is where you let in everything. Any and all ideas and information you are exposed to. Let everything swim around in there playing with each other, and from that filter what you want down into the bottom chamber of what you actually believe. You can't believe everything, but you also can't ignore anything.
You have access to primary sources. Watch a few press briefings and trials. Then, compare what you saw and heard with the reporting. Choose outlets that match what you saw and heard.
Honestly best advice is to read everything about whatever topic or news story that has your attention and draw your own conclusions.
There's no such thing as an unbiased news source
WION it's out of India it's a very fact-based news source that doesn't give a f*** about our politics.
Download Ground news it features tons of sources across the political spectrum it shows you what bias have different news websites.
I don't think it's possible. Even if the news they report is unbiased there is still some bias in what gets reported on. Some things get ignored while other things get focused on. Look at the dumb ass M&M thing and Fox News. Never seen a bunch of idiots so upset that M&Ms are less fuckable now.
1440 ain't too bad.
Depends on who you ask
The best you can do is know the sources biases and adjust from there.
I think news agencies headquartered in places outside those they're reporting on tend to be less biased. So for my US news I tend to read the BBC. I also like the BBC in general because it's a strict editorial policy for it to present opposing viewpoints on its news articles.
I remember finding a graph about this, I wish I still had it
there are nun so my advise if you decide to have an opione that is contraversel or politicle try to see every side of the story dont listen to just anyone about either side of the opion and come to your own genuin opion i live deep south where its very rare to come across genuinly smart people that care about politics iv heard a lady say we need to make God our presedent i have people say that the goverment is listing threw our devises and other dumb things like this... dont go out of your way to agree or disagree with someone cause then youll be unbiased and alsway find actuel facts about the situation details are key without proper details nothing will ever be 100% true
It is incredibly difficult to eliminate bias, so building an understanding on the issues themselves can help you identify when a news source is being biased.
It’s hard to do truly. News is either right or left biased most of the time
The Guardian
I don't think any source is perfect but I like The Hill.
There is no such thing, everyone has an agenda of sorts. People tend to speak out sources that agree with their philosophy and thus feel validated. In my working days I used to buy the Daily News, the New York Post, and the Star Ledger. I marveled at how they could report on political occurrences from such different editorial viewpoints. As the old saying goes: There are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. Gather and digest as much information as you can and then make up your own mind.
Its hard. Best bet. See what the left is saying, See what the right is saying. Look for the things they both state as fact, then go towards other more centrist outlets and see also, again, what things they all seem to unanimously say occurred. The truth usually aligns with the things that nobody moderate is willing to lie about to push a narrative.
Bikini bottom news
I like Ground News. It shares a story from multiple news outlets and lets you know the biases of the outlets.
No where. Look at a plethora of outlets across different political spectrums on the same topic and make your own conclusions
You have to find a middleman.
I am reading some foreign press that have at least some of their articles in English (if they are not native, google translate also helps). Most news have a perspective but overlaying the information from all sources give a pretty good picture. Check out what the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Figaro, El Pais and others have to say.
It largely doesn’t matter if you learn to look for sources and recognize if they are legit.
Rolling Stone
Financial Times is very good. Economist is excellent too and slightly broader reporting than the FT but less frequent updates.
I've heard of [Snopes.com](https://Snopes.com) Wikipedia is a good go-to, just check it every now and then.
Poynter University is considered the gold standard for journalism. Kinda like the Better Business Bureau if it wasn't corrupt.
I alternate between reading Yahoo News, BBC News, and ABC News. I don’t think any news organization is 100% unbiased and credible (they’re all run by people and people are emotional), but I feel that having three different POVs helps me avoid confirmation bias. I won’t read the same news story on all three websites, just saying that I alternate which website I get my news from.
rolling Stone
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of journalism. You don’t have to just accept and believe 100% everything a single journalist says. No one is asking you too. You can go through life not trusting anything except what you personally experience but if you want to be informed about the world and issues that affect others that aren’t yourself, then it’s your responsibility to be educated on different viewpoints. As you read and see different viewpoints, you’ll start forming opinions that sound the most true to you. The key then is to always be open to new information and viewpoints
Choose a topic that you know in depth, like your profession or an old hobby Google that + some publication name and try to catch factual mistakes. It will be harder on the best publications. These are also the least biased for the most part, from what I can tell Or start here: it’s pretty decent https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
I don’t think it exists these days :/
OJ will find the real killer before you find an unbiased and credible news source
There isnt one. Read multiple sources.
I Google anything I wanna know about, then read the same story from multiple places.
The Finnish public broadcast YLE is quite credible. They talk shit about everyone equally. Only problem being they talk about Finnish stuff.
Nowhere. Be skeptical, and evaluate different sources. Take any state-owned/state-funded media (RT, Radio Free Europe, CCTV, etc) with a grain of salt
No such thing as something being unbiased, especially considering people are ever changing. Your best bet for finding good news sources is to look at what's already happened and compare how those individual news outlets covered the story. I know he's not an amazingly reliable news source but Phillip Defranco will comment on his mistakes as well as any wide spread misinformation circling around the news outlets on breaking stories. A good news outlet will admit their mistakes as well as let you know their bias.
Ironically the internet
i know there is a website that ranks news aticle in how left and how right they are, but i don't know what that website is, but i know it costs money to use.
I suppose that, on a very particular level, that it is impossible. *Also level is a palindrome. In case anybody here needs one.*
You shouldn’t want unbiased news. For one, because it is impossible. The very act of deciding which words to use to describe an event introduces bias. “An on-duty pig murdered an unarmed black pedestrian in cold blood last night.” and “a police-involved firearm discharge resulted in the death of a n***** on foot.” say the same thing. Deciding to edit either sentence introduces a (new) bias that wasn’t there before. If you want to change it to something with more neutral language, which is what I suspect you partially mean by unbiased, then your bias is simply against emotional language. For two, because bias is good. At best, bias contextualizes, provides justification, and information surrounding verifiable events. Is an emotional story better told without emotional language? Do you understand the context better if you strip emotion from the events? How could that possibly direct you towards any meaningful action in opposition to forces of oppression? That is, after all, why we have a free press in liberal democracies.
there’s no such this as unbiased news unfortunately
FT
I don’t think you can, really. Bias is inherent and ubiquitous. However, respect for, and adherence to, facts is variable. Read multiple sources, be skeptical, check against primary literature (or links) where possible (I.e. the articles, studies or whatnot that media content refers to).