• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which media outlet is the LEAST biased?

Mustachio said:
I was listening to them talking about Trump tonight. They said he might or might not help the economy. Economists disagreed. Those awful liberals dared to air audio admitting that not every economist believes Trump will be a good President for the economy?

How dare they? And then they had a skit about an elf who questioned how Santa determined which children are naughty and which are nice. An obvious metaphor for something pro-liberal, I don't know what, but I'm sure it was biased for some reason.
Click to expand...

They fired Juan Williams for saying (on a different network), that muslims on planes make him nervous. And of course they are partly funded by taxpayers and thus promote govt propaganda.

https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias
NPR’s Bias Factory | The Daily Caller

Least biased maybe, simply due to the fact that they have less political content, and less punditry type shows. But their bias is in the news the choose to report on (or dont).
 
europious said:
The BBC - I have found it has the most impartial stories.
Click to expand...

The BBC is in fact extremely biased: it went all out for Remain before the referendum and is still doing everything it can to obstruct the democratic vote of the British people.

The BBC no longer even pretends to be even handed. Last September it appointed a Minister in the last Labour government, James Purnell, to be Head of Radio - that is in charge of its entire radio output. All BBC current affairs output, radio and TV, is run by leftists. A known Conservative would not even get a job in the BBC, even as a tea lady.

Know this: the BBC is funded by a tax. If Brits don't pay it they can and do end up in prison.
 
jonny5 said:
They fired Juan Williams for saying (on a different network), that muslims on planes make him nervous. And of course they are partly funded by taxpayers and thus promote govt propaganda.

https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias
NPR’s Bias Factory | The Daily Caller

Least biased maybe, simply due to the fact that they have less political content, and less punditry type shows. But their bias is in the news the choose to report on (or dont).
Click to expand...

Oh boy. They don't promote government propaganda. I listen to their news every morning and when Trump frequently comes up they don't say anything bad about him, they just report the story. And you KNOW those journalists are liberals - but they just aired a story that said Trump could be good for the stock market. Did Obama's henchmen plant that story to gaslight us? The alternative is Fox News, which actually does get a daily list of talking points from the RNC and is told how to phrase and frame stories and headlines. That falls under propaganda, not news.

I think it's even simpler. The most boring news is the most accurate. NPR is WAY more boring than any other news network, therefore it's WAY more accurate. Best possible litmus test.

/thread
 
Mustachio said:
Oh boy. They don't promote government propaganda. I listen to their news every morning and when Trump frequently comes up they don't say anything bad about him, they just report the story. And you KNOW those journalists are liberals - but they just aired a story that said Trump could be good for the stock market. Did Obama's henchmen plant that story to gaslight us? The alternative is Fox News, which actually does get a daily list of talking points from the RNC and is told how to phrase and frame stories and headlines. That falls under propaganda, not news.

I think it's even simpler. The most boring news is the most accurate. NPR is WAY more boring than any other news network, therefore it's WAY more accurate. Best possible litmus test.

/thread
Click to expand...

Damnit, and I was going to respond.
 
CriticalThought said:
Since we appear to have reached an era where nobody trusts the media, I am curious if it is even possible for the left and right to agree on what media outlet may be the least biased.

It would be beneficial to know since so many threads start out with posters immediately dismissing the topic based only on the source provided. Maybe we could have some better discussions if we knew which media source would elicit the least suspicion of bias.
Click to expand...

BBC, maybe C-Span?
 
Fox only when Bret Baier or Neal Cavuto are on. The rest is drivel.
 
Erod said:
Fox only when Bret Baier or Neal Cavuto are on. The rest is drivel.
Click to expand...

Bret Baier was a little bit distracting because of his obvious bias against Trump during the campaign, but he was one of the guys who I liked to watch as part of my studies on establishment Repub reporting. I had a news routine where I would watch a few guys who were anti Trump/establishment Repubs, just to keep up with that bias. Chris Wallace, Bret, and O'rielly were good for that, kinda like Lou Dobbs, Hannity, and Jeanine were good sources for the anti establishment bias.

As always, the most dangerous bias in the media is one's own confirmation bias, and of course limiting consumption of media to what satisfies it.
 
Mustachio said:
Oh boy. They don't promote government propaganda. I listen to their news every morning and when Trump frequently comes up they don't say anything bad about him, they just report the story. And you KNOW those journalists are liberals - but they just aired a story that said Trump could be good for the stock market. Did Obama's henchmen plant that story to gaslight us? The alternative is Fox News, which actually does get a daily list of talking points from the RNC and is told how to phrase and frame stories and headlines. That falls under propaganda, not news.

I think it's even simpler. The most boring news is the most accurate. NPR is WAY more boring than any other news network, therefore it's WAY more accurate. Best possible litmus test.

/thread
Click to expand...
They don't have to be 100.0000% anti-Trump to have a liberal bias.
 
CriticalThought said:
Since we appear to have reached an era where nobody trusts the media, I am curious if it is even possible for the left and right to agree on what media outlet may be the least biased.

It would be beneficial to know since so many threads start out with posters immediately dismissing the topic based only on the source provided. Maybe we could have some better discussions if we knew which media source would elicit the least suspicion of bias.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in unbiased news, and I'm not sure that it's a problem, at least on the nature of it being biased. The question is whether the evidence has been distorted. If the evidence is presented in full and then an interpretation is given... I don't really care. For me, I'm more concerned about knowing as much of the news as possible. Not including stories or not reporting on something is, to my mind, the absolute worst kind of bias., and that's the kind of bias that is prevalent in corporate cable news.
 
mpg said:
They don't have to be 100.0000% anti-Trump to have a liberal bias.
Click to expand...

The point was that they're not anti-Trump. I listen all the time and they don't attack trump, because they report news and when relevant, have an expert offer their opinion. They reported all the stories about Hillary (the e-mails and even the wikileaks garbage no matter how boring that was) and didn't leave out details while also not inserting opinions, excuses, etc. THAT is news.

The only thing that's 100% is that you don't listen to NPR. I'll transcribe some of what I hear and demonstrate the many ways they avoid showing bias in their reporting. You probably won't care because it will bore you.
 
I'd go with NPR and CNN...

FOX is by far the most biased, because it regularly uses false character attacks. None of the other outlets do this.
 
Mustachio said:
The point was that they're not anti-Trump. I listen all the time and they don't attack trump, because they report news and when relevant, have an expert offer their opinion. They reported all the stories about Hillary (the e-mails and even the wikileaks garbage no matter how boring that was) and didn't leave out details while also not inserting opinions, excuses, etc. THAT is news.

The only thing that's 100% is that you don't listen to NPR. I'll transcribe some of what I hear and demonstrate the many ways they avoid showing bias in their reporting. You probably won't care because it will bore you.
Click to expand...
I listen to NPR a few hours/day. It's my primary news source.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I don't believe in unbiased news, and I'm not sure that it's a problem, at least on the nature of it being biased. The question is whether the evidence has been distorted. If the evidence is presented in full and then an interpretation is given... I don't really care. For me, I'm more concerned about knowing as much of the news as possible. Not including stories or not reporting on something is, to my mind, the absolute worst kind of bias., and that's the kind of bias that is prevalent in corporate cable news.
Click to expand...

The problem is that too often "editorial perspective" or what ever fancy new terms have been conjured up to replace it (Matthew Yglesias had a pithy one a week or so ago but I cant remember it and I am too lazy to go back and find it) has all too often devolved into free reign of the staff to put their creative juices to work creating narratives which conform to the directive, the amount of truth required in the effort varying from place to place. It is not only Rolling Stone that latched on to this stupid idea in the attempt to remain relevant and profitable.

It is the lack of honesty that is the main problem, not the slant, as you hint at.

But then again that is the #1 failure of the entire elite class.
 
Last edited:
Mustachio said:
The point was that they're not anti-Trump. I listen all the time and they don't attack trump, because they report news and when relevant, have an expert offer their opinion. They reported all the stories about Hillary (the e-mails and even the wikileaks garbage no matter how boring that was) and didn't leave out details while also not inserting opinions, excuses, etc. THAT is news.

The only thing that's 100% is that you don't listen to NPR. I'll transcribe some of what I hear and demonstrate the many ways they avoid showing bias in their reporting. You probably won't care because it will bore you.
Click to expand...

You find collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and CNN to give her an advantage against Bernie boring?
 
Media_Truth said:
I'd go with NPR and CNN...

FOX is by far the most biased, because it regularly uses false character attacks. None of the other outlets do this.
Click to expand...

Nothing compares to CNN and MSNBC as far as character attacks go....
 
Nap said:
You find collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and CNN to give her an advantage against Bernie boring?
Click to expand...

You'll have to repeat that using words that form a sentence that make sense.
 
Al Jazeera USA is the most unbiased media news. They are actual journalists. They present the news by stating facts and not their opinions or slant.

Before anyone says it, Al Jazeera USA is not the same as Al Jazeera Arabic.
 
Mustachio said:
You'll have to repeat that using words that form a sentence that make sense.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, I'm a redneck therefore English is a second language for me.

You believe the collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and CNN during the primary to be boring?
 
Nap said:
Forgive me, I'm a redneck therefore English is a second language for me.

You believe the collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and CNN during the primary to be boring?
Click to expand...

Did I say something about collusion between the DNC and Hillary's campaign? Or CNN? I just don't get what this has to do with anything I said. I was saying that the least hyperbolic and bombastic news organizations are the most accurate. That doesn't mean that it's more accurate to not cover the Boston Marathon attack, it means that it's more accurate to cover it calmly and without three people screaming at each other for no reason other than entertainment.

Is that what you were getting at? I still don't know.
 
Mustachio said:
Did I say something about collusion between the DNC and Hillary's campaign? Or CNN? I just don't get what this has to do with anything I said. I was saying that the least hyperbolic and bombastic news organizations are the most accurate. That doesn't mean that it's more accurate to not cover the Boston Marathon attack, it means that it's more accurate to cover it calmly and without three people screaming at each other for no reason other than entertainment.

Is that what you were getting at? I still don't know.
Click to expand...

You said Wikileaks was boring
 
Nap said:
You said Wikileaks was boring
Click to expand...

Ah, I found the post you're talking about. There was a wikileaks release every single day and NPR would report on it when the most relevant thing to report was that Podesta had a recipe for lobster risotto. I agree that the DNC made Hillary the candidate because Bernie's socialist label is poison for a presidential ticket. That's interesting. Of course they'll report that. But they reported the lobster risotto, because the wikileaks were news even when they were irrelevant. Just semantics.

Incidentally, NPR did a story today about promising strides Trump has made in distancing himself from his private assets. They also pointed out some trouble spots without any hyperbole. Again, extensive research, balanced reporting and relevance to the American people. That's what we used to call journalism.
 
Mustachio said:
Ah, I found the post you're talking about. There was a wikileaks release every single day and NPR would report on it when the most relevant thing to report was that Podesta had a recipe for lobster risotto. I agree that the DNC made Hillary the candidate because Bernie's socialist label is poison for a presidential ticket. That's interesting. Of course they'll report that. But they reported the lobster risotto, because the wikileaks were news even when they were irrelevant. Just semantics.

Incidentally, NPR did a story today about promising strides Trump has made in distancing himself from his private assets. They also pointed out some trouble spots without any hyperbole. Again, extensive research, balanced reporting and relevance to the American people. That's what we used to call journalism.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get you now. I agree it would have been better had they taken out the meaningless emails. I really enjoy NPR's Intelligence Squared debates podcasts.
 
mpg said:
The burden of proof isn't on you so you aren't required to provide evidence to back up your point, but I hope you don't think that you have provided evidence.
Click to expand...

WOW that is so deep, I thought this forum was called "Debate Politics" not "Post Links from your favorite Political propaganda site". The actual ratings of CNN prove my point.
 
Casca XV said:
WOW that is so deep, I thought this forum was called "Debate Politics" not "Post Links from your favorite Political propaganda site". The actual ratings of CNN prove my point.
Click to expand...
I think I meant to quote someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom