looking for a good news source, TV, online, print

[flowerseverywhere]

I am pretty dismayed these days at the mainstream media. Watching CNN yesterday I was amazed at how much editorialism of the commentators was included. For instance, not "the president addressed the summit" but instead "the garbled incoherent speech the president gave to the summit was painful to watch, here's the clip." I think I can judge if someone is incoherent and whether it is painful to watch. From the bias of the commentators to the emphasis on who is wearing what to the judgement of guilt instead of stating the facts (see George Zimmerman thread), to the comments, eye rolling, laughter etc. of the reporters I am pretty jaded. I watched BBC this AM and that seemed to be good, Al Jazeera online is interesting, memeorandum online is also good. At least they are presenting facts with the story instead of just opinions although I can pick up biased slants. I don't want to hear just what I think, I want to hear the facts. Any suggestions, comments?

[SteveinMN]

That's a tough one, flowerseverywhere. The increasing treatment of TV news as eyeball-gathering ("Anthrax found at a local shopping mall. Find out which one at 10!") and the ongoing merger of media sources into ever-fewer hands (News Corp, Disney, Gannett,...) makes finding just-the-facts reporting pretty difficult. Even the international news sources can have somewhat-predictable biases (France24 and Russia Today have pretty much opposite spins on most stories). Of course, international news does a bad job of coverage local to wherever you live. And print is not much better on any of those counts. Especially with organizations like the Chicago Sun-Times burdening their reporters with being photographers as well (just wait till they fire all the reporters and rely on bloggers and stringers).

One possibility might be Associated Press. AP coverage is picked up by news organizations of all stripes, often verbatim, so they can't lean too far in any one direction. AP also offers mobile apps that present the major stories directly on your mobile device rather than filtered through a news-organization Web site. Reuters also offers less-biased news, though they do concentrate on business and finance more than "people" news (sorry, Mitt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-corporations-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html)). For several years, my brother subscribed to "The Week (http://theweek.com/)"; granted, you lose some of the timeliness of a daily news source, but that's not entirely bad, IMHO, as it provides some perspective after the hubbub and misinformation dies down.

I'm interested to see what others recommend.

[Liv]

As a weekly sort of highlight of the news we still like the old, old, old show McLaughlin Group, Fridays with their 'you tube' vid. http://www.mclaughlin.com/ a somewhat nonbiased coverage, shows two perdictable sides anyway.

[iris lilies]

... At least they are presenting facts with the story instead of just opinions although I can pick up biased slants. I don't want to hear just what I think, I want to hear the facts. Any suggestions, comments?

Why do you need to watch any teevee news at all? I don't.

I skim a lot of things. I don't feel the need to know everything in depth. When it's important to me, I pay attention and will look at various print sources. If it is a radio day, I'll hear NPR news throughout the day. Otherwise, I skim our morning newspaper and see the headlines flash on Yahoo. Those are the big stories and that's how I know, generally, what' sgoing on.

For commentary there are several places I go, but that's not what you asked.

[bUU]

I doubt news without bias ever existed. Edward R. Murrow's news and Walter Cronkite's news typically stunk of ethnocentrism. People tend to report what they see from the vantage point of where they are, and that alone is affected by the bias inherent with who they are. A relative of mine brings the news of Sudan to America, but you practically never hear anything positive about the NCP. "Newsworthiness" itself is a bias.

[flowerseverywhere]

thanks for the interesting comments. iris, I don't have to watch TV, I sometimes put it on when I am sewing or cleaning, or a major event is happening. I know all news will have some bias, but the extreme bias (as in Rush Limbaugh for example) is what I am trying to avoid. I think for a long time I was being swayed by opinions rather than fact. I have been doing a lot of reading of history the last few years and the facts of what has happened in the past as opposed to popular impressions and what people express of their accounts of what really happened is amazing. I don't want to be ignorant and misinformed.

[iris lilies]

thanks for the interesting comments. iris, I don't have to watch TV, I sometimes put it on when I am sewing or cleaning, or a major event is happening. I know all news will have some bias, but the extreme bias (as in Rush Limbaugh for example) is what I am trying to avoid. I think for a long time I was being swayed by opinions rather than fact. I have been doing a lot of reading of history the last few years and the facts of what has happened in the past as opposed to popular impressions and what people express of their accounts of what really happened is amazing. I don't want to be ignorant and misinformed.

We are all ignorant, "ignorant" meaning devoid of facts. We, none of us, know even 1/millionth of what's going on in the world. So what? What's that done to me?

As a citizen of the world each of us has to determine what is newsworthy because as BBU aptly points out, even choosing what to put in the news broadcast (on inside the newspaper) is biased.

I do not like receiving information linearly. Linear presentation is teevee or radio, in other words it is one streaming mass of info presented beginning to end and that I have to absorb by taking in the entire stream. They, the presenters, hold me captive during the stream. I don't like that.

I like to hunt and peck at news and that why I like text resources. In today's newspaper I read one story from beginning to end, Only one. I glanced at many headlines. But that one story was interesting and complex with all of the Al- names. It was about the American-born terrorist who was assassinated by fellow Islamist radicals in Somali. I read parts of it more than once to get the full facts. I hunt through other text resources on the web when I want to know stuff.

[pattirose]

I don't know where you live but here, the Russian news channel (in English) has a decent broadcast, I found the International news and the Business news quite good. It comes with basic cable but I've cancelled cable so I don't get it anymore.

[Rogar]

I tend to use the NPR online website. They tend to have a liberal way of reporting, but don't do much sensationalizing and have some good general interest stories. Their articles go into a little more depth of understanding than the little blurbs the talking heads give. http://www.npr.org/ I also like the NY Times articles for a good in depth review of some issues that I've not been able to find elsewhere. It costs to subscribe for a full featured source, but I can like to article from websites or that friends send. They limit the number of articles you can view in a moth, which can easily be overcome by clearing you browser when you reach the limit. They tend to have an east coast big city liberal viewpoint, but it's not too hard to separate the grain from the shaft.

[SteveinMN]

I don't know where you live but here, the Russian news channel (in English) has a decent broadcast, I found the International news and the Business news quite good.
If you're talking about the Russia Today newscast, my experience in watching it is that there is a noticeable anti-Western flavor to it. An event like the Newtown killings is far more likely to get big play along with editorial on "the evils of America's gun-happy culture".

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you're talking about the Russia Today newscast, my experience in watching it is that there is a noticeable anti-Western flavor to it. An event like the Newtown killings is far more likely to get big play along with editorial on "the evils of America's gun-happy culture".

Yea, that unbiased news source likely doesn't exist. If you just want the mainstream perspective, the average news paper will probably do if your newspaper is semi-decent - if it isn't you can hardly get more mainstream than the New York Times, or maybe the BBC? Most of the things these outlets will give you contain some truth, it's not all fabrication or anything, but it is *bias*.

Why mainstream U.S. news is hopelessly biased, in the simplest form: 1) because it's almost all owned by a very few companies and needs to sell ads as well 2) I also strongly suspect it's heavily influenced by government in addition to corporate pressure. This is a controversial case: yes we have a state media Virginia. It would require a lot more information than I have on hand. So believe it or don't, but some hints that this is so: things like the AP scandal - journalists have to be aware of that, things like journalist compelled to testify against their sources (this is the case with James Risen), the treatment of journalists like Greenwald, etc. 3) there's also whole subtle forms of pressure like the group think of insiders, the need to maintain access to politicians etc.. These pressures are intensified by #1 for sure, and possibly by #2.

Concrete structural causes for bias like it's all owned by a few companies, are good because you can actually get a handle on them, they are concrete and verifiable things. Unlike just getting into a philosophical argument: all thought is biased, all positions are positions seen through a lens etc.. Ok and where does one go from there? (the only thing I've ever heard argued from there is to try hard to switch lenses regularly)

The media seems to behave AS IF it were biased for sure (it tends to make the case for wars for instance). So even if we assume we don't know how media sausages are produced - it's corporate pressures, or it's C.I.A. infiltration, who the heck knows, the end result could be seen as evidence of bias.


I know all news will have some bias, but the extreme bias (as in Rush Limbaugh for example) is what I am trying to avoid.

I don't know "some bias" seems much more dangerous than Rush Limbaugh. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is the fish that knows it's swimming in water. I mean everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh is right wing talking points. Whereas mainstream media bias is the fish that doesn't see the water it swims in (water, I haven't seen any water, what do you mean I'm surrounded by water and that I'm actually supposedly even swimming in it?).

Plenty "biased" Chris Hedges on the New York times:
" The entire paper—I speak as someone who was there at the time—enthusiastically served as a propaganda machine for the impending invasion of Iraq. It was not only [Judith] Miller."
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/the_myth_of_the_new_york_times_in_documentary_form _20110706//

[flowerseverywhere]

well part of the bias is the messenger for sure. This morning I watched Meet the press, face the nation and the Fox news as I was doing chores. Whose opinion would hold more water for you? Madeline Allbright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, various Republican and Democrat congresspersons or the Fox news analyst? Each had different perspectives, from one end of the spectrum to the other. But listening to all of them, and BBC news this weekend at least helped me form some opinions. Although my opinions may not be correct, at least I try to make them informed. this is a time of huge newsmaking events. The upcoming budget crisis, the Syrian situation and the health care mandate are all important issues that affect all of us.

[SteveinMN]

But listening to all of them, and BBC news this weekend at least helped me form some opinions. Although my opinions may not be correct, at least I try to make them informed.
There there are our own biases, our own experiences, our own filters. But if you can start from a more-neutral point, so much the better.

[pattirose]

If you're talking about the Russia Today newscast, my experience in watching it is that there is a noticeable anti-Western flavor to it. An event like the Newtown killings is far more likely to get big play along with editorial on "the evils of America's gun-happy culture".

You're right, it was Russia Today. I never noticed it being anti-Western, it very well could have been. Out of the choices I had for news, (local news, CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBC, Russia Today) it was the least annoying to me.

[bUU]

YWhy mainstream U.S. news is hopelessly biased, in the simplest form: 1) because it's almost all owned by a very few companies and needs to sell ads as well 2) I also strongly suspect it's heavily influenced by government in addition to corporate pressure.If there thousands of news sources, there would be a thousand different biases. The need to sell advertising or attract subscriptions does indeed affect bias, though not always political bias. And indeed government officials, anti-government advocates, corporate partisans, and anti-corporate partisans, all have their role in shaping the bias of news sources.

The only way to present news free from bias would be to require webcams be installed in every room, every closet, every hallway, every block of every street, all with parabolic microphones, and provide free access. Even that wouldn't be free from bias, actually - it would be affected by the most significant source of bias in the viewing of news: The bias of the person seeking the news.

[JaneV2.0]

After watching for awhile, I'm liking Al Jazeera more and more--especially its documentaries, and its focus on world news. I've seen segments on mountain gorillas, the Seed Bank, Mongolian sumo wrestlers (!), and El Salvador's military atrocities. I like that its presenters are from everywhere, and that there is little or no cutesy banter between them.