• 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!

What News Channel is the least biased?

Which News Channel is the least biased?


  • Total voters
    96
I'm sure the fact that my politics identifies me more with Fox than with the left-wing networks has something to do with my opinion but I have definitely noticed that Fox is more likely to report negative news on the right than CNN is to report negative news on the left__I have personally witnessed this many times_

The left wing networks are constantly attacking Fox News the same as Fox News is constantly attacking left-wing news but I realize that they are simply competing for our political souls so I take their criticism of each other with a grain of salt where as you appear believe every word you are told by the talking heads__I judge only by what I see_

Interesting article for you to read: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I believe the poll would have been better served if the question had been most honest rather than least biased_

They are all politically biased but some do manage to be more honest in their overall news reporting than others_
 

Yep. As when you are looking for ANYTHING, you generally stop as soon as you find it. You may search for books/articles on a subject of interest, reading perhaps 4 out 20 sources found, but you tend to stop after reading that fourth source, if (and only if) it confirms your initial belief, even though the prior three did not. Instead of reading all 20 and accepting the fact that only 3 out of the 20 agreed with your initial thoughts, or even acknowledging that only 1 out of the 4, that you did read, agreed with your initial thoughts, you still leave satisfied that you were, in fact, "completely" right. ;-)
 
Yep. As when you are looking for ANYTHING, you generally stop as soon as you find it. You may search for books/articles on a subject of interest, reading perhaps 4 out 20 sources found, but you tend to stop after reading that fourth source, if (and only if) it confirms your initial belief, even though the prior three did not. Instead of reading all 20 and accepting the fact that only 3 out of the 20 agreed with your initial thoughts, or even acknowledging that only 1 out of the 4, that you did read, agreed with your initial thoughts, you still leave satisfied that you were, in fact, "completely" right. ;-)

Then it should be no problem for you to present 16 sources of rebuttal.
 
I am 100% aware of this human tendency and have been for very long time_

In fact I have posted it quite a few times myself, although I have never credited it to Wiki_

This is the version I happened across several years ago_(and my most recent use of it)
CNN's bias is all too obvious and if you don't see it on your own, it can't be shown to you by others because you would only deny the evidence_

The truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn, but like many you do not seek the truth but only confirmation to what you already believe_

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...ch__the-great-equalizer-6.html#post1060632428

It is one of my favorite quotes_ :thumbs:
 
I believe the poll would have been better served if the question had been most honest rather than least biased_

They are all politically biased but some do manage to be more honest in their overall news reporting than others_

Honesty would put Fox News in dead last
 
Yep. As when you are looking for ANYTHING, you generally stop as soon as you find it. You may search for books/articles on a subject of interest, reading perhaps 4 out 20 sources found, but you tend to stop after reading that fourth source, if (and only if) it confirms your initial belief, even though the prior three did not. Instead of reading all 20 and accepting the fact that only 3 out of the 20 agreed with your initial thoughts, or even acknowledging that only 1 out of the 4, that you did read, agreed with your initial thoughts, you still leave satisfied that you were, in fact, "completely" right. ;-)
We can always find a reason to deny something we don't wish to believe_

It's a classic case of some one who's convinced they can outsmart their self_ :prof
 
I am 100% aware of this human tendency and have been for very long time_

In fact I have posted it quite a few times myself, although I have never credited it to Wiki_

This is the version I happened across several years ago_(and my most recent use of it)


It is one of my favorite quotes_ :thumbs:

The hilarious irony there is probably lost on you.
 
You sir are a victim of the dreaded Talking Heads_

No im not. Not at all. Sense i hardly ever watch any of the "mainstream" oh! Excuse me, "lamestream" media.
But if you just look out your shell you would easily see this.
Perfect example of this right now; back when Bush was president and he used the dreaded executive order FOX News applauded it and all their pundits loved it! Also FOX was all about secrecy in the government, but now sense we have a democrat in office they hate secrecy and they hate that damn Executive Order, comparing the current situation to "watergate"!

Also remember the death panels. Or how about the great Glenn Beck undervoering the "truth"? Or how about how Obama is a secret socialist, marxist?
 
The hilarious irony there is probably lost on you.
Sorry Redude, but the only "hilarious irony" is your perception of who it is lost on_

My awareness and self-awareness have left me acutely cognizant of the symptoms_
 
No im not. Not at all. Sense i hardly ever watch any of the "mainstream" oh! Excuse me, "lamestream" media.
But if you just look out your shell you would easily see this.
Perfect example of this right now; back when Bush was president and he used the dreaded executive order FOX News applauded it and all their pundits loved it! Also FOX was all about secrecy in the government, but now sense we have a democrat in office they hate secrecy and they hate that damn Executive Order, comparing the current situation to "watergate"!

Also remember the death panels. Or how about the great Glenn Beck undervoering the "truth"?
Me, "look out of my shell"???__I'm not the one who doesn't see the bias on both sides_

I recognize and criticize all bias while you selectively accept or reject it based on whether or not it favors your politics_

Or how about how Obama is a secret socialist, marxist?
"Secret" ???__You're kidding, right?!

Not only is Barack Hussein Obama a full blown Marxist, but he's also a lifelong racist_

Obama hates the white race and jews and holds them responsible for the plight of his people_
 
I try to get news from multiple sources, usually using one to play off the other as they all seem to lean to some extent. I have however, found one in particular to play pretty fair while actually providing the information I seek.
Which do you find tends to cover the news without heavy bias....if any?

Well the answer is probably other/none.
Odd you left MSNBC off the list eventhough of course they are no where near the lead of least bias.

All the news leans one way or another and then some lean more depending on the subject.

I will say this though anybody that picks MSNBC or FOX can obviously and immediately be labeled bias themselves, they are probably a hack and I could never take them seriously. Id also be shocked if any objective logic came out of their mouths as those two stations are clearly and obviously the worse by a mile. :shrug:
 
Sorry Redude, but the only "hilarious irony" is your perception of who it is lost on_

My awareness and self-awareness have left me acutely cognizant of the symptoms_

SO you are saying con firmation bias does not apply to you, even though you show all the evidence of having a major problem with it? Somehow I think I will stick with my much more accurate perception.
 
Me, "look out of my shell"???__I'm not the one who doesn't see the bias on both sides_
I never said they werent biased. Im saying you equating CNN to FOX is ludicrious.


I recognize and criticize all bias while you selectively accept or reject it based on whether or not it favors your politics_
:doh
**** no i dont. I dont watch any mainstream news. I only watch CNN when i get up in the morning while i drink my coffee before class. Other than that i get my news for Google news, Al Jazeera, The Real News Network, Reddit Politics, Politico, Politifact, Russia Today.
"Secret" ???__You're kidding, right?!

Not only is Barack Hussein Obama a full blown Marxist, but he's also a lifelong racist_

Obama hates the white race and jews and holds them responsible for the plight of his people_

Yea this is why no one takes you serious.
 
Try C-SPAN.

I watch C-Span time to time. The only reason i have CNN on is because i have the channel memorized, the first HD channel on the program guide. Watch it for about 5-10 min then off to class.
 
And that, my friends, is the most objective news source. No reinterpretations.

Aside from the fact that they record and distribute a large arrangement of think tank, policy institutes, and political speeches, sure.
 
Aside from the fact that they record and distribute a large arrangement of think tank, policy institutes, and political speeches, sure.

Alright. I feel you bro, I think.

You've convinced me the cameras recording the live hubbub have political leans.
 
Alright. I feel you bro, I think.

You've convinced me the cameras recording the live hubbub have political leans.

It is good to see what Congress does publicly, but much of those are procedural, prepared speeches made to a rathe small gathering of colleagues, rather than the excellent coverage provided for committee meetings which are certainly more interactive and important.
 
It is good to see what Congress does publicly, but much of those are procedural, prepared speeches made to a rathe small gathering of colleagues, rather than the excellent coverage provided for committee meetings which are certainly more interactive and important.

Well, then why doesn't C-SPAN record those, too?

I was under the impression they did...
 
Back
Top Bottom