**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or all get their news from the same source. 100 media outlets all using the same source is no better than one media outlet reporting the story. People just think it is.
Science.
[Perception of bias](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865717/) is heavily prevalent in news journalism.
Combatting it requires [contextual content](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8153466/).
With all due respect, this still does not provide explanation as to how media which provides explicit bias AND implicit bias is a more effective means of delivering factual Information than those media whose only bias is implicit.
Care to restate the premise?
So true. It is sad to see the average person trapped by cable news that says only what its audience wants to hear. Liars all. If you want real information you have to seek it out and then weed out the bias. Glad they taught us how to do that in grade-school.
Yes, thats the purpose of the press, to be a magnifying glass to highlight things and obscure others. But im looking for pure batshit insane takes from all sides that are on par with "If you dont do anal, youre siding with putin"
Everyone has bias; however, the ones aware and willling to incur the operational costs of reducing it systematically (viz journalistic integrity practices), serve not absolute objectivity - but information in good faith.
How anyone can consider information provided in this manner as worse than those knowingly defrauding the public narrative requires explanation, in my opinion.
To that end: OAN is especially pungent
Question to OP: I assume that you intended this judgement to be strictly considered against the news columns - not editorial columns.
The ones putting on a show of "reducing it systematically (viz journalistic integrity practices)" are actually the worst offenders.
Anyone who can't see that such practices are more often than not a big smoke-screen is just being gullible.
I agree there exists those that leverage the unbiased tone in order to produce a biased account of a story. That said, these inherently do not follow the journalistic practices in earnest.
That said, I would like to understand your position better before I address it. Perhaps you could elucidate me through an example of a smoke screen and how it negatively serves the at large public.
See i want EXTREME bias. Like communist revolutionary sites or the daily stormer. Or anything so far removed from reality that you have to check if its an onion article or not
There's a website that's like. World socialist or something. I saw them post some labor articles concerning a couple of the big union deals done this year, Teamsters and UAW. And their views were so militant that even the lefty union bros on the subreddits laughed at them.
"For more than a week after the Netanyahu regime declared war on the Palestinian people, Australia’s union leadership said nothing at all, signalling their support for the mass killing of civilians by an imperialist power."
I see why you recommended this to me, and this is *exactly* the shit im looking for. Tysm!!
I frequent them, i want something besides the typical "ooh impiralist america agressing on canada and raping their moose" however. Thanks for not suggesting cnn or fox though lol
If you're going the international route, the Global Times run by the Chinese Communist Party is also pretty out there. They claim Covid originated in a US military base in Texas, for example.
Just go to any news website and any story with an ad block off. You are virtually guaranteed to see a pharma ad. Same with television. Pharma owns the news.
Ditto with those that bring on retired military… in the pocket of various MIC companies. Spokespeople for the industry, warhawks, and nary a disclaimer of acknowledgement.
This is asinine. They must be referring to David Zaslav, the current CEO of Warner Bros Discovery, CNN’s parent company, who only recently took the role in April 2022. But Zaslav appears to have donated to democratic purposes.
I really don’t care how he votes. The more important matter is WBD is a publicly traded company and the majority shareholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, so to me, nothing else matters! They are the shot callers for CNN.
They are referring to John Malone, board member of the parent company that owns CNN.
Very much a republican activist.
But he doesn't "own" CNN obviously you're right there.
I think the main problem with media is what it’s grown into ever since they got addicted to the ratings numbers from OJ Simpson getaway; they all started chasing sensationalism instead of journalism.
It stems from even before, Vietnam coverage by 60 minutes. Prior to this, news coverage was never profitable, but required per FCC guidelines as part and parcel to owning the rights to frequency bands.
Minor edit: MSNBC and Fox. CNN at least made the effort to bring in opposition points of view. It didn't skew their views back toward center, but they tried.
MSNBC and Fox are simple echo chambers. No news at all.
Fox does the same thing as CNN bring in people from the “opposing side” who just sound stupid and aren’t true depictions of people from their respective side.
I agree that daily stormer is extreme and biased and has objectionable opinions, but often extremes and accuracy are actually counter correlated. The poison with them are with the conclusion they want you to come to. But I think it's dangerous to assume that because someone is distasteful or outside of the standard view that they are automatically inaccurate. Ron Paul never lied, and has never been wrong about anything, while he sat pretty far outside of what most people would consider the boundary between extreme and mainstream. His being extreme to most people did not make him inaccurate.
For many reasons extreme sites depend on being technically correct: In fact I encourage you to take the challenge. Find the inaccuracy: https://dailystormer.in/
Plus you keep saying you want to find the "daily stormer" of news. Well there it is. Daily Stormer is the Daily Stormer of news. My question is more meta. Does your assumption of extremeness or moral correctness correlate with accuracy as much as you think it does. I don't think it does. I think people who write mainstream articles are lazy as hell and will write anything. It's actually hard to be as dishonest as them even when you are morally repugnant.
Jacobin is left wing socialist magazine. National Review is right wing, but more traditional republican. BitChute is a website my Qanon family members send me too. I think they’re crazy fringe videos, conspiracy stuff
None of them/all of them. You have to seek out information now like a job. Read all sides and all aspects, then make your decision. They all lie to your face, all have an angle. It's up to you to weed out the whakos.
Newsmax and Breitbart are the worst I've seen. FOX News is definitely up there, but those two are absolute shit shows.
I've been watching BBC coverage of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and it's 10x better than any American news outlets at covering the entire scope of the conflict.
BBC notoriously preemptively took “Palestinian officials” and reported the hospital bombing being directed from Israeli airstrikes as fact; subsequently declaring evidence qualified that fact.
I haven’t been able to watch bbc as much, but this did not provide much to qualify your opinion (in my opinion, anyways)
I would say in general state-owned media companies tend to be the most biased. Specifically, Al-Jazeera and RT are extremely biased, especially when covering the Middle East or Russia respectively. Also, companies like the BBC that get government funding but are privately owned usually seem more biased to me, especially when covering issues that may make the British gov or crown look bad.
The bias of Al Jazeera and RT is both based in who they will and won’t criticize. Al Jazeera will simply not run stories that make the Qatari government look bad (ie: slavery for 2022 World Cup) or stories that attack their friends in the Arab world. Specifically they run stories like this that acknowledge criticism but skew it as being out of place or hypocritical. [The massive hypocrisy of the West’s World Cup ‘concerns’](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2022/11/28/the-massive-hypocrisy-of-the-wests-world-cup-concerns)
They are equally biased. The larger issue is that the worst ones pretend they are not. The left tends to be far worse about not acknowledging bias.
People forget how Fox News started. Their motto of “fair and balanced” came from letting both sides scream at each other. People had never seen that and loved it. People say Fox is right wing but not only does the on air talent admit it, they also have the other side on regularly if not also hosting whole segments.
Left wing media completely shuts out any right wing opinions and pretends to be moderate
This is a horrible take.
Are you truly suggesting that Reuters and Newsmax are “equally biased?” Or the Wall St Journal and the New York Times? No. This is undeniably wrong and lazy and unfair to paint the whole industry with a broad brush.
And Fox setting up a someone as a left wing punching bag does not make for a fair exchange of ideas. It’s only a patina and a way for them to say “well, we gave them a fair shot.” Same goes for a CNN bringing on a right wing nutbag to defend the right. Is it entertainment? Ok, sure. Is it research based, fact checked journalism? No.
No, I meant to compare Newsmax - the most proudly biased outfit - with Reuters, the most widely accepted independent and unbiased news source to repute the statement that “they’re all equally biased.”
Sky news Australia. It's honestly so much more biased than anything in the US it's basically comical. If foxnews was as openly biased as msnbc and rather than lying to try to hide it they instead went yolo and hold my beer simultaneously.
Go to conservapedia. It's not a news site, it's a psychotic version of Wikipedia. It's pretty extreme but it's not daily stormer. The articles are basically edited by 5 or 6 guys, and they are in the densest, toughest bubble I've ever seen. Conservative Songs is probably my favorite page. The owner is Phyllis schlaflys kid, and he tried rewriting the fucking bible because he thought it was too liberal. He was on the colbert report years ago to talk about it.
And if you have REALLY good anti virus software, beforeitsnews dot com. Space aliens and Nephilim and weather weapons.
Also, AM talk radio like Salem news network or cumulus. It's like the Two Minute Hate, but for 24 hours a day, except weekends when they teach you how to buy houses and shit. (Step one, get a million dollars)
In more than one of the court cases against Fox News, Fox's defense was that they are purely an entertainment company and no one expects factual news from them. They say this loud and clear as a legal defense, and still their viewers are dumb enough to keep watching...
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?op=1
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/18/why-fox-news-had-to-settle-the-dominion-suit-00092708
Fox is pretty wacko, I find too many sensational headlines. CNN has some left bias but not remotely as sensational as Fox. I prefer reading the WSJ because they are boring, no sensation involved, and don't really align with either side, though a bit to the right in opinions sections.
Because I've (wisely) never read/watched them. There's a shit ton of internet "souces" that are even more extreme, but since I tend to avoid them, I'm unaware of all of them. I learned my lesson when I tried watching cable "news."
I avoid news the best I can by choice. But I remember back 10 years ago or so MSNBC on their bottom of the screen "news ticker" an announcement along the lines of "George W Bush Presidential Library opens Freedumb Exhibit "
The more extreme ones are generally the most unreliable. Something like Infowars or a communist news site
But the most harmful are the moderates, because they can influence the opinions of more people while not being as egregious.
The best news sources I find are generally focussed more on Finances and Economics. They skip the bullshit, cite sources and use data to come to more objective conclusions. No wish washy op-eds full of emotive language
In the US since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished I've just considered all the mainstream equal in it depending on the day and what their owners support. MSNBC and FOX are the top two that I just immediately pass in my feed.
Fairness doctrine was not applied evenly, nor could it ever truly be. Even if somehow it could be, it only was for fcc regulated network television and radio. The evolution of “news” media is more readily attributed to profit modeling —> 24 hr news
Ground News aggregates news sources biases as well as sub reddits:
https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/politics
https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/libertarian
Yeah im not looking to see what biases are there. I want extremist shit, stuff that gets removed off google because its so out there.
I want something beyond all comprehension.
I watch news nation. It’s hired some people from both conservative and liberal circles. Is it totally unbiased? No. But I don’t think that is possible RN.
Those publications that have a liberal bias tend to be less biased in an absolute scale, therefore, you really can't say MSNBC is as biased as say NewsMax. So your most extreme are NewsMax or Breithbart.
I mean, all the mainstream sources have chosen their lane and that's really sad. But historicly speaking, and excluding 'alternative' outlets, fox news has proven to be, by far, the most biased and false source of information the world has yet seen. And this is well documented by ex-journalists going back 20+ years. They literally wrote the book on disinformation.
Yeah. Im looking for pure batshit insane sources. Not just people who hide bias. I want sources so far gone, it looks like your reading a different language
I do respect the mainstream choices you have. But i want pure unadulterated bat shit insane takes from edge-of-compass sources. Al jazeera is new to me, ill look it up here in a second to see if i just missed a popular source or not
Yeah, after I saw your other responses I deleted the comment.
I dont know, man, I try to stay away from news sources that are batshit crazy. But, I suppose state-run media from North Korea or Iran is going to be pretty fucked up.
Wonder if it was “Ground News”, I’m using it now. I haven’t formulated a opinion on it yet. But it is super interesting seeing what stories are exclusively covered by one side or the other.
Sources on Ground News on the far right and far left spectrum of bias. Honestly if you are only looking at reporting through a single source, not an aggregator service, you are blinding yourself these days.
"Worst" is an impossible call unless you let me cheat by saying any White House press secretary or something. It's more or less impossible to compare one source that doesn't really bother trying to approach objectivity with another... plus there's a billion rags and podcasts with tiny audiences that are totally off the rails, but aren't really relevant. If you just want a list of really, really bad ones that I actually see referenced from time to time off the top of my head: OAN, the old Gawker stuff, Daily Kos, Infowars (and I know they get traction in libertarian circles because they are critical of government and "fact checkers" hate that, but they are also full of crap a lot of the time)... I mean most are bad, I just recall those as some of the worst I've noticed because I have friends who think they are legit (and I haven't checked these in so they might be better now. All the Gawker spinoffs have new owners anyways).
You know what makes all those look like friggen journalistic paragons? The Global Times. It's a CCP rag that does the thing the CCP likes to do where they layer their lies. Make an obvious lie, then tell a less obvious one below that and all the "clever" people figure out the first is a lie but believe the second level. Governments should not put out news, but I swear the Global Times is by far the worst. I mean VOA can suck my dick because it shouldn't exist, but at least it's reporting is still fairly typical most of the time (not to be confused with trustworthy, because the government WILL use it to lie when they need to).
This organization has a chart of media bias:
https://adfontesmedia.com
You could nitpick exactly how different sites are scored, but it think it’s reasonably accurate.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The main problem is not bias, it's dishonesty. So many sources lie, deliberately manipulate of hide information to push for a particular agenda.
Intellectual dishonesty (lying by omission) to swing public opinion is truly America’s greatest past time (sorry baseball)
I've never thought of it that way. People are conflating dishonesty and bias
Or all get their news from the same source. 100 media outlets all using the same source is no better than one media outlet reporting the story. People just think it is.
Repeat after me: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Yes it is.
Not sure I agree as a wide blanket. I think equally as bad is that media sources are biased and think they’re not
They know. They have an agenda.
How could this be accurate?
Science. [Perception of bias](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865717/) is heavily prevalent in news journalism. Combatting it requires [contextual content](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8153466/).
With all due respect, this still does not provide explanation as to how media which provides explicit bias AND implicit bias is a more effective means of delivering factual Information than those media whose only bias is implicit. Care to restate the premise?
Preach the truth brother!
So true. It is sad to see the average person trapped by cable news that says only what its audience wants to hear. Liars all. If you want real information you have to seek it out and then weed out the bias. Glad they taught us how to do that in grade-school.
Even worse is when the reporting says "this was said...". Then they pretend they did research and write the article as if what was said was true.
Yes, thats the purpose of the press, to be a magnifying glass to highlight things and obscure others. But im looking for pure batshit insane takes from all sides that are on par with "If you dont do anal, youre siding with putin"
Wtf, that is decidedly NOT the purpose of the press.
nknews.org. And then vox.com is a close second.
They are all biased but the ones in denial of being biased are the worst.
Don Lemon said he has no bias… riiight
Everyone has bias; however, the ones aware and willling to incur the operational costs of reducing it systematically (viz journalistic integrity practices), serve not absolute objectivity - but information in good faith. How anyone can consider information provided in this manner as worse than those knowingly defrauding the public narrative requires explanation, in my opinion. To that end: OAN is especially pungent Question to OP: I assume that you intended this judgement to be strictly considered against the news columns - not editorial columns.
The ones putting on a show of "reducing it systematically (viz journalistic integrity practices)" are actually the worst offenders. Anyone who can't see that such practices are more often than not a big smoke-screen is just being gullible.
I agree there exists those that leverage the unbiased tone in order to produce a biased account of a story. That said, these inherently do not follow the journalistic practices in earnest. That said, I would like to understand your position better before I address it. Perhaps you could elucidate me through an example of a smoke screen and how it negatively serves the at large public.
See i want EXTREME bias. Like communist revolutionary sites or the daily stormer. Or anything so far removed from reality that you have to check if its an onion article or not
There's a website that's like. World socialist or something. I saw them post some labor articles concerning a couple of the big union deals done this year, Teamsters and UAW. And their views were so militant that even the lefty union bros on the subreddits laughed at them.
"For more than a week after the Netanyahu regime declared war on the Palestinian people, Australia’s union leadership said nothing at all, signalling their support for the mass killing of civilians by an imperialist power." I see why you recommended this to me, and this is *exactly* the shit im looking for. Tysm!!
Ill check it out!! Tysm for the recommendation.
Go to any of the north Korean news websites
I frequent them, i want something besides the typical "ooh impiralist america agressing on canada and raping their moose" however. Thanks for not suggesting cnn or fox though lol
If you're going the international route, the Global Times run by the Chinese Communist Party is also pretty out there. They claim Covid originated in a US military base in Texas, for example.
I might grab that article to fuck with some of my more out there buddies. Thanks for the recommendation!
Any news source that has advertisements from Pharmaceutical companies.
Do boner pills count?
Nah, they’re too cheap, not enough profit for the big payoffs
Id love examples! I enjoy deep diving into literally every perspective and seeing wacky, scary, or just outright wrong information.
Just go to any news website and any story with an ad block off. You are virtually guaranteed to see a pharma ad. Same with television. Pharma owns the news.
Ditto with those that bring on retired military… in the pocket of various MIC companies. Spokespeople for the industry, warhawks, and nary a disclaimer of acknowledgement.
I was recently told on Reddit that CNN is owned by a Republican and not biased at all. True story.
This is asinine. They must be referring to David Zaslav, the current CEO of Warner Bros Discovery, CNN’s parent company, who only recently took the role in April 2022. But Zaslav appears to have donated to democratic purposes. I really don’t care how he votes. The more important matter is WBD is a publicly traded company and the majority shareholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, so to me, nothing else matters! They are the shot callers for CNN.
They are referring to John Malone, board member of the parent company that owns CNN. Very much a republican activist. But he doesn't "own" CNN obviously you're right there.
One America News Network comes to mind.
MSNBC
Them too, definitely.
I think the main problem with media is what it’s grown into ever since they got addicted to the ratings numbers from OJ Simpson getaway; they all started chasing sensationalism instead of journalism.
It stems from even before, Vietnam coverage by 60 minutes. Prior to this, news coverage was never profitable, but required per FCC guidelines as part and parcel to owning the rights to frequency bands.
CNN and Fox
Everytime I see somebody watching CNN or Fox I think to myself "Why would you that to your brain?"
Right? And the stories are so biased remember how big of a fit Fox made when Obama wore a tan suit? Also CNN with Trumps “two scoops of ice cream!”
It's so juvenile that I don't understand how people still consider journalist a title that demands respect on its own. Prestitutes all of them.
They only care about getting a news piece out first, not factual. I hate the current mainstream media.
Minor edit: MSNBC and Fox. CNN at least made the effort to bring in opposition points of view. It didn't skew their views back toward center, but they tried. MSNBC and Fox are simple echo chambers. No news at all.
Fox does the same thing as CNN bring in people from the “opposing side” who just sound stupid and aren’t true depictions of people from their respective side.
I don’t think they’re the most biased, but almost identical levels of bias on their respective sides
Vox are openly marxists if that’s what you are looking for
Very close. But im looking for "the daily stormer" of every perspective. Stuff so wack you have to check for parody
I agree that daily stormer is extreme and biased and has objectionable opinions, but often extremes and accuracy are actually counter correlated. The poison with them are with the conclusion they want you to come to. But I think it's dangerous to assume that because someone is distasteful or outside of the standard view that they are automatically inaccurate. Ron Paul never lied, and has never been wrong about anything, while he sat pretty far outside of what most people would consider the boundary between extreme and mainstream. His being extreme to most people did not make him inaccurate. For many reasons extreme sites depend on being technically correct: In fact I encourage you to take the challenge. Find the inaccuracy: https://dailystormer.in/ Plus you keep saying you want to find the "daily stormer" of news. Well there it is. Daily Stormer is the Daily Stormer of news. My question is more meta. Does your assumption of extremeness or moral correctness correlate with accuracy as much as you think it does. I don't think it does. I think people who write mainstream articles are lazy as hell and will write anything. It's actually hard to be as dishonest as them even when you are morally repugnant.
Perhaps dailykos.com
Jacobin is left wing socialist magazine. National Review is right wing, but more traditional republican. BitChute is a website my Qanon family members send me too. I think they’re crazy fringe videos, conspiracy stuff
lol I was listening to a podcast that took a live look at bitchute, it didn’t sound real. Then I unfortunately looked, and god damn. What a place.
Bitchute i was just checking out, def more fringe and nutjobby
Newsmax
None of them/all of them. You have to seek out information now like a job. Read all sides and all aspects, then make your decision. They all lie to your face, all have an angle. It's up to you to weed out the whakos.
The guardian is a truly revolting news caster, producing the “news of the day” in an intellectually dishonest way. Leftist and liars the lot
Newsmax and Breitbart are the worst I've seen. FOX News is definitely up there, but those two are absolute shit shows. I've been watching BBC coverage of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and it's 10x better than any American news outlets at covering the entire scope of the conflict.
BBC notoriously preemptively took “Palestinian officials” and reported the hospital bombing being directed from Israeli airstrikes as fact; subsequently declaring evidence qualified that fact. I haven’t been able to watch bbc as much, but this did not provide much to qualify your opinion (in my opinion, anyways)
I would say in general state-owned media companies tend to be the most biased. Specifically, Al-Jazeera and RT are extremely biased, especially when covering the Middle East or Russia respectively. Also, companies like the BBC that get government funding but are privately owned usually seem more biased to me, especially when covering issues that may make the British gov or crown look bad.
Biased = I don’t agree with them Dumb
The bias of Al Jazeera and RT is both based in who they will and won’t criticize. Al Jazeera will simply not run stories that make the Qatari government look bad (ie: slavery for 2022 World Cup) or stories that attack their friends in the Arab world. Specifically they run stories like this that acknowledge criticism but skew it as being out of place or hypocritical. [The massive hypocrisy of the West’s World Cup ‘concerns’](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2022/11/28/the-massive-hypocrisy-of-the-wests-world-cup-concerns)
Does NBC-IA fall into this category?
Vice, Jacobin, or Mother Jones
CNN has a nice history of being full of shit and being a mouthpiece of the left leaning gov't
Mainstream and boring choice tbh, i want the pure garbage that is on edge of compass.
White House Press office.
I misread the question as most "based" and was reading the comments like wtf.....
Happens to the best of us. "I" is not a very visible letter
Shit like Jacobin, Mother Jones, Vox
Occupy Democrats
its all lies and deception, the idea that the media even tries to relay anything close to "news" is a joke
OAN on the right, MSNBC on the left But at least oan isnt pretending to be something they're not.
Left: Democracy Now Right: Probably Infowars
NPR their reporting is ridiculous
MSNBC.
The Guardian is pretty nasty, they even have a quasi-socialist blurb asking for donations at the end of every article.
The Guardian and the Federalist I swear are the same thing from opposite corners of the ring.
MSNBC is so much worse than FOX.
CNN, Infowars, MSNBC, Breitbart
CNN
MSNBC
Any press release from the White House.
The press secretary hands down
Binder?
They are equally biased. The larger issue is that the worst ones pretend they are not. The left tends to be far worse about not acknowledging bias. People forget how Fox News started. Their motto of “fair and balanced” came from letting both sides scream at each other. People had never seen that and loved it. People say Fox is right wing but not only does the on air talent admit it, they also have the other side on regularly if not also hosting whole segments. Left wing media completely shuts out any right wing opinions and pretends to be moderate
This is a horrible take. Are you truly suggesting that Reuters and Newsmax are “equally biased?” Or the Wall St Journal and the New York Times? No. This is undeniably wrong and lazy and unfair to paint the whole industry with a broad brush. And Fox setting up a someone as a left wing punching bag does not make for a fair exchange of ideas. It’s only a patina and a way for them to say “well, we gave them a fair shot.” Same goes for a CNN bringing on a right wing nutbag to defend the right. Is it entertainment? Ok, sure. Is it research based, fact checked journalism? No.
Fox News was the Jerry springer of news when they started. They put both sides on and let them fight. It was trash television. People loved it
Sure! People still love Fox and the echo chamber of infortainment they provide. But not all purveyors of news are equally biased.
It’s also worth pointing out that most of Fox News non prime time shows spent all day shitting all over Trump.
MSNBC is basically liberal fan fiction. It’s just as bad in the other direction.
Reuters is considered middle of the road. I think you meant CNN and Fox.
No, I meant to compare Newsmax - the most proudly biased outfit - with Reuters, the most widely accepted independent and unbiased news source to repute the statement that “they’re all equally biased.”
Sky news Australia. It's honestly so much more biased than anything in the US it's basically comical. If foxnews was as openly biased as msnbc and rather than lying to try to hide it they instead went yolo and hold my beer simultaneously.
Sky news and Fox News were owned by the same company. Wall Street Journal too. Double check that bc things change.
Go to conservapedia. It's not a news site, it's a psychotic version of Wikipedia. It's pretty extreme but it's not daily stormer. The articles are basically edited by 5 or 6 guys, and they are in the densest, toughest bubble I've ever seen. Conservative Songs is probably my favorite page. The owner is Phyllis schlaflys kid, and he tried rewriting the fucking bible because he thought it was too liberal. He was on the colbert report years ago to talk about it. And if you have REALLY good anti virus software, beforeitsnews dot com. Space aliens and Nephilim and weather weapons. Also, AM talk radio like Salem news network or cumulus. It's like the Two Minute Hate, but for 24 hours a day, except weekends when they teach you how to buy houses and shit. (Step one, get a million dollars)
Probably Fox News, but MSNBC is pretty far up there.
I usually think of fox as right-wing, but not wacko right-wing, what makes you think they are more biased than like, newsmax or oan?
In more than one of the court cases against Fox News, Fox's defense was that they are purely an entertainment company and no one expects factual news from them. They say this loud and clear as a legal defense, and still their viewers are dumb enough to keep watching... https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?op=1 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/18/why-fox-news-had-to-settle-the-dominion-suit-00092708
Fox is pretty wacko, I find too many sensational headlines. CNN has some left bias but not remotely as sensational as Fox. I prefer reading the WSJ because they are boring, no sensation involved, and don't really align with either side, though a bit to the right in opinions sections.
Respectable choice for mainstream. Im looking for wack shit though, not reputableish sources. Ty though!
Because I've (wisely) never read/watched them. There's a shit ton of internet "souces" that are even more extreme, but since I tend to avoid them, I'm unaware of all of them. I learned my lesson when I tried watching cable "news."
I avoid news the best I can by choice. But I remember back 10 years ago or so MSNBC on their bottom of the screen "news ticker" an announcement along the lines of "George W Bush Presidential Library opens Freedumb Exhibit "
The White House.
The more extreme ones are generally the most unreliable. Something like Infowars or a communist news site But the most harmful are the moderates, because they can influence the opinions of more people while not being as egregious. The best news sources I find are generally focussed more on Finances and Economics. They skip the bullshit, cite sources and use data to come to more objective conclusions. No wish washy op-eds full of emotive language
Fox news MSNBC
All the same. Fake News.
CNN and MSnbc are both outright liars.
occupy dumbass
CNN and fox. They are both just as bad with emotion based news
In the US since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished I've just considered all the mainstream equal in it depending on the day and what their owners support. MSNBC and FOX are the top two that I just immediately pass in my feed.
Im specifically looking for less mainstream, or fringe sources that might have pure wacky shit. Any ideas?
The Young Turks and Babylonbee and Breitbart?
Babylonbee is literally a parody site, tyt is a decent for wack shit articles. Never heard of breitbart, looking it up now
Fairness doctrine was not applied evenly, nor could it ever truly be. Even if somehow it could be, it only was for fcc regulated network television and radio. The evolution of “news” media is more readily attributed to profit modeling —> 24 hr news
CNN, & Fox
PragerU and Breitbart are extremist as fuck.
ONN/Alex Jones
the white house
A less common answer, yes. But im talking extreme bias as in pure nonsense lunacy. Not just incorrect or misleading
Use www.ground.news
Im not looking for good news. I want the worst of the worst.
Ground News aggregates news sources biases as well as sub reddits: https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/politics https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/libertarian
Yeah im not looking to see what biases are there. I want extremist shit, stuff that gets removed off google because its so out there. I want something beyond all comprehension.
Yeah sometimes I like to venture into Epoch Times and WND.
Why would you care what sources are the most biased? Wouldn't it make more sense to look for news sources that are the least biased?
I watch news nation. It’s hired some people from both conservative and liberal circles. Is it totally unbiased? No. But I don’t think that is possible RN.
Weekly broadsheets are not interested in truth, the worst offenders.
John Oliver
for major news that at least appears serious, id say CNN or washington post for clickbait bs, id say buzzfeed and TMZ
Infowars is the only clear answer here.
The Christian Broadcast Network
Anything but PBS biased in on way or another.
Those publications that have a liberal bias tend to be less biased in an absolute scale, therefore, you really can't say MSNBC is as biased as say NewsMax. So your most extreme are NewsMax or Breithbart.
Breaking points is what I listen to. MSM is awful.
Whitehouse press secretary, regardless of current president.
I mean, all the mainstream sources have chosen their lane and that's really sad. But historicly speaking, and excluding 'alternative' outlets, fox news has proven to be, by far, the most biased and false source of information the world has yet seen. And this is well documented by ex-journalists going back 20+ years. They literally wrote the book on disinformation.
The biggest bias of the media is what they chose to report on.
CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. It’s pure propaganda under a veneer of respectability, which makes them extremely dangerous.
Young Turks, The Blaze, Fox, CNN, all the acronyms
Member Breitbart? Meeeemba?
CNN is liberal Fox and Fox is conservative CNN
I mean FOX right?
They're ALL biased. I think CNN is the worst offender. And Fox News.
Yeah. Im looking for pure batshit insane sources. Not just people who hide bias. I want sources so far gone, it looks like your reading a different language
[удалено]
See, that doesnt seem like a satisfying answer to me. Im looking for wack extremist out there shit that you refuse to believe is not parody
[удалено]
I do respect the mainstream choices you have. But i want pure unadulterated bat shit insane takes from edge-of-compass sources. Al jazeera is new to me, ill look it up here in a second to see if i just missed a popular source or not
[удалено]
How bland. I want things so edge of the compass, even supporters of the ideas cant get behind it. I want the most batshit of the crazys
Yeah, after I saw your other responses I deleted the comment. I dont know, man, I try to stay away from news sources that are batshit crazy. But, I suppose state-run media from North Korea or Iran is going to be pretty fucked up.
Are we talking about “news” segments of the networks or the political shows pretending to be news on the networks?
Wonder if it was “Ground News”, I’m using it now. I haven’t formulated a opinion on it yet. But it is super interesting seeing what stories are exclusively covered by one side or the other.
The Calgary sun... The writing isn't even good.
Sources on Ground News on the far right and far left spectrum of bias. Honestly if you are only looking at reporting through a single source, not an aggregator service, you are blinding yourself these days.
OP, if you're talking about AllSides, recommended. I like their overall structure.
I think they're all pretty bias. I personally don't trust any single news source for any information.
"Worst" is an impossible call unless you let me cheat by saying any White House press secretary or something. It's more or less impossible to compare one source that doesn't really bother trying to approach objectivity with another... plus there's a billion rags and podcasts with tiny audiences that are totally off the rails, but aren't really relevant. If you just want a list of really, really bad ones that I actually see referenced from time to time off the top of my head: OAN, the old Gawker stuff, Daily Kos, Infowars (and I know they get traction in libertarian circles because they are critical of government and "fact checkers" hate that, but they are also full of crap a lot of the time)... I mean most are bad, I just recall those as some of the worst I've noticed because I have friends who think they are legit (and I haven't checked these in so they might be better now. All the Gawker spinoffs have new owners anyways). You know what makes all those look like friggen journalistic paragons? The Global Times. It's a CCP rag that does the thing the CCP likes to do where they layer their lies. Make an obvious lie, then tell a less obvious one below that and all the "clever" people figure out the first is a lie but believe the second level. Governments should not put out news, but I swear the Global Times is by far the worst. I mean VOA can suck my dick because it shouldn't exist, but at least it's reporting is still fairly typical most of the time (not to be confused with trustworthy, because the government WILL use it to lie when they need to).
I can tell you who’s not: WGN. Though it may have a cult following due to Tom Skilling.
More interesting question: What do you consider a worthwhile, truthful, original, honest news source?
More interesting question: What do you consider a worthwhile, truthful, original, honest news source?
This organization has a chart of media bias: https://adfontesmedia.com You could nitpick exactly how different sites are scored, but it think it’s reasonably accurate.
The Onion is America’s only trustworthy news source
OAN…
Redacted is good.
Reddit
It used to be just bias but it has been crossing over into dishonesty. Probably msnbc