• 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?

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...

Fox News, obviously.

They are Fair and Balanced.
 
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 think we might have better luck choosing a screen or print news person or two who show a modicum of integrity.
 
NPR is my main source for news because I find it convenient to listen to the radio. I don't consider them to be close to unbiased. For those of you who think they aren't liberal, what would they have to do before you would consider them liberal? Please be at least somewhat specific.
 
RickJames3000 said:
That's right.
Because considering what outlet we might use as a relatively unbiased source might lead to more calls for substantiation.
I could see how that might be unpopular with you.
Click to expand...

And I can see why short cutting actual intelligent debate with lazy logical fallacy would be popular with you.
 
jmotivator said:
And I can see why short cutting actual intelligent debate with lazy logical fallacy would be popular with you.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could possibly have come to that conclusion as you have neither initiated nor offered any "actual intelligent debate" in any of the exchanges we've had here. All I've seen from you is deflection and evasion, and an unwillingness to back up your assertions with substantiation.
 
RickJames3000 said:
I don't know how you could possibly have come to that conclusion as you have neither initiated nor offered any "actual intelligent debate" in any of the exchanges we've had here. All I've seen from you is deflection and evasion, and an unwillingness to back up your assertions with substantiation.
Click to expand...

That is funny, because you posted articles from biased sources in another thread that I then addressed individually in detail and your response opened with "tl;dr"... so no, I gave you a fair shot at a reasonable discussion and you took the low, intellectually lazy, evasive road.
 
BBC, Reuters, and AP come to mind for information gathering, and double check even those.
 
jmotivator said:
That is funny, because you posted articles from biased sources in another thread that I then addressed individually in detail and your response opened with "tl;dr"... so no, I gave you a fair shot at a reasonable discussion and you took the low, intellectually lazy, evasive road.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I remember.
You didn't like the way I let you know you were getting off the subject.

And then you went into a passive-aggressive huff during which you refused to provide a link substantiating your claims for the following ten or so posts.
Ah... the memories!:lol: Good times!
Nice reminiscing with you.
 
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...

Rather than try to pinpoint the single least biased source, I think it's best to get a small variety of news vendors with high journalistic standards, and try to get a healthy distribution of political orientations. In my opinion, up to a point bias is actually less important than the quality of the news.

I believe that chasing the fabled "unbiased source" would be futile and a source of frustration.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Yeah. I remember.
You didn't like the way I let you know you were getting off the subject.
Click to expand...

Typical response from you, RJ3K! You characterize my response to YOUR POST as off-topic. :lamo
 
Nap said:
It is virtually impossible to not have a lean. Everyone has opinions. Multiple sources from both sides is generally going to be the best bet and realize the truth is somewhere in the middle. I like to listen to podcasts from both sides generally. As a conservative I have found the most objective person on Trump to be Ben Shapiro, he was a #nevertrumper but he is very conservative. It seems every other news media person Trump is either God or Satan.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence sums it all up. I am a lefty who worked on immigration/labor issues, and in my more activist days was frustrated by bias I perceived in coverage. Let me give examples: years ago I saw a British Labor Party leader challenge Bill Buckley on the immigration question. The Brit said "If (under Buckley's free trade/markets ideology) capital should be able to cross borders freely, why shouldn't labor?" Buckley's response was that human migration brings with it significant disruption, to which the Brit suggested Bill B was being naive if he didn't acknowledge the disruptive effect of, say, US businesses selling corn in Mexico. Similarly, I have yet to hear any mention in the public of how cheap "illegal" labor subsidizes us when we buy produce, or eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel staffed by undocumented workers. This to say nothing of the contradiction of GOP figures denouncing illegal immigration and predominantly GOP businessmen employing it and democrat-supporting labor unions having a tougher time organizing because of it. None of this is meant to justify illegal migration, only to note bias its discussion.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, we are all biased, except on different subjects.
 
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...

Obviously you are talking about media writing about politics. My vote goes to the Wall Street Journal. It is also biased but less so than others.
 
mpg said:
NPR is my main source for news because I find it convenient to listen to the radio. I don't consider them to be close to unbiased. For those of you who think they aren't liberal, what would they have to do before you would consider them liberal? Please be at least somewhat specific.
Click to expand...

NPR is quite liberal.
 
They are all useless.
 
I am finding that The Week is writing some of the most insightful and fair journalism around right now on American politics. I also like Der Spiegel and Economist for the same reasons on other issues.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
NPR is quite liberal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reuters I guess is pretty good, plus the BBC is trusted except when it's about UK.

Sent from my PKT-301 using Tapatalk
 
Which media outlet is the LEAST biased?
Click to expand...

Cspan
blank Google news search
 
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...
It's possible to be biased without being biased 100% of the time. You don't even have to be biased most of the time.
 
This infographic I saw batting around the interwebs sums up my own feelings about good and bad sources of information pretty well:

7xHaUXf.jpg

I don't mind a little bias. As long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of the journalism, then it's fine. In fact, I'd say that if you hold purely to centrist news sites then you're creating an entirely separate bubble that discounts reasonable right and left viewpoints. But one thing that is consistent is that when that bias crosses a certain line the quality will always fall off a cliff.

Everything in the "complex" venn diagram is essentially what I've programmed into my news feeds.
 
Chomsky said:
At one time I would've said CNN, but after the recent Donna Brazille thing, well I never thought I'd ever flip to the otherside - but they really did it wrong here.

I'm still hoping for them, though. Maybe if they land Megyn Kelly.

I'll also echo BBC & Reuters from upthread.
Click to expand...

The Brazille thing is mild compared to most of the CNN dishonest bias. Within 5 years CNN will be a podcast run by a 1/2 dozen people, if they exist at all. I doubt Meagan will be happy with that. She is flirting with CNN because her days are numbered at FOX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom