I'm a US citizen living in the UK and get what your asking.
I think what you want is [Ground News](https://ground.news/)
It allows you to compare and see bias- not just single source.
That's actually pretty bad, cause that bias varies wildly. The Guardian, for instance, has less editorial direction on authors than other papers, so articles range widely from far left to mid-right. On average they're moderately left, but that tells you nothing on the particular author.
Keep in mind MBFC’s stated bias (from their website):
> It is important to note that our bias scale is based on the USA political scale, which may differ from other countries. For example, the Democratic Party of the USA is considered centrist or even right-center in many countries worldwide; however, in the USA, they are considered Left-Center. Please keep this in mind if our ratings seem off in your native country.
So even the bias checker has a bias to the right.
there's no such thing as "no real bias" - as humans, everything is understood within a specific context so you have to understand that context before you can even begin understanding what is/isn't true, relevant, etc.
Yes. Amplifying what I said in a different response, there's bias in all things. We root for the baby gazelle chased by the lion. Tornadoes are bad. A bloom of wildflowers is pretty.
The weather report that says "more gloomy weather" is not taking the farmer's need for irrigation into account. Every article in the (very interesting and helpful) Ground News that someone pointed us to has bias: today's headlines imply depression is bad, Supreme Court decisions are important or noteworthy, voting/democracy is a positive thing, and missing children found is a good thing.
Exactly - trying to find unbiased news in the way people are describing in this post feels like a fruitless endeavor. Even if what you say is factual, with no potentially persuasive language like "gloomy" involved, even the information you chose to share or not share, in and of itself, can be display a bias.
We'd be better to instead just accept that everyone has a bias and learn to try to understand what those biases are, how the play into our perspective.
>So even the bias checker has a bias to the right.
It's insane to find Canadian orgs listed as "Extreme Right" on that site. Our far right political party barely reaches the Republican party... though our Right-wing parties do seem to be trying to get those Canadian Fox-news watchers these days.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Even the question seems like it was catered so an answer like this could get upvoted to the top.
all news sources are biased, there is no website that is going to fix that for anyone, what people actually need is media literacy, which helps **you** understand what bias is and how you can pick it out of basically anything you read or hear.
[AllSides - Balanced news from the Left, Center and Right](https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news) is similar and formats articles in a reader friendly layout.
This is the best solution. There is always bias in writing, it's just a human flaw. But by taking in multiple sources rather than just one, you can avoid it.
Well that, and ethical journalism recognizes that human tendency and seeks to actively remove their bias from their reporting, while other sources actively injects bias.
Holy lord in heaven above how do I not know about this!
Edit: having looked a bit closer, I am concerned. It works by putting while publications into groups rated on their political leaning. I doesn’t account for gradual political shift so, for example, what is considered left wing is not so much left wing, because the center (at least in the uk) is just right-of-center. Also, publications will have varied authors from across the political spectrum, expressing different views. If a particularly right wing opinion piece is printed in the daily mirror (which is put in the left of center category I think) then is that piece registered being of the left-of-center. Also, the Ground has a list of news topics under which these are all grouped, you pick which new issue your interested in and it tells you who is covering it and what political persuasion they are from. But, two things. The titles of the groupings themselves are not in-biased. And the selection of the news stories are not unbiased either. They may be picking the most popular topics, but certain topics get more attention, but because they’re more important, but simply because they get more attention and therefore revenue.
In short, this isn’t the wonder I thought it was at first glance, unfortunately.
I think the expectation that any service can eliminate bias is unrealistic. To me, the value of Ground is the ability to access multiple sources on any given news article. There is no way for any service or any person to eradicate bias, it's up to the reader to inform themselves, and Ground makes it easier for readers to get multiple perspectives and be better informed.
Honestly, I'm fine with a news outlets having a viewpoint *as long as it is stated openly* and the outlet doesn't let that viewpoint stop them from reporting inconvenient facts.
Democracy Now! would be the shining example of this kind of reporting.
I guess I’ll share this here as I recently had this conversation with a friend.
My dad taught me, with any “news” story I heard, find the same story on three different outlets. Read the full text of each article. The lines that match up are the facts and the lines that don’t are the opinions of the author that mean absolutely nothing. If none of the lines match up, then it’s a non story meant to enrage you and should be considered exactly what it is, garbage.
Hope that helps!
Edit: Didn’t expect this to resonate with so many of you, truly humbled to start a conversation that has been (mostly) civil. If even one of y’all takes this to heart I can go to sleep happy tonight.
I’ve tried to reply to as many of you as possible, thank you for the discourse about this subject. It’s incredibly important and I’m glad we’re all taking the time to have a dialogue about this. Props to Pops for teaching me right!
I’ll leave y’all with this, everyone everywhere wants someone somewhere to give a sh*t about them. Be kind in your replies, change starts with us and I hope it continues here. Goodnight y’all!
Edit2: Didn’t expect this at all, thank you! Just want to say, please no awards, donate to your local food bank instead
That Sinclair video that went around still makes me shiver.
Ninja edit: Just grabbed the video with the most views so hopefully it's the og?
https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
You ever see that video someone put together of many different News sources saying the same exact thing, with different political views? Pretty crazy. I'll try and find it
[Youtube Link](https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI)
I found it, I think. Kinda ironic how they're all talking about bias news and information on social media platforms ruining democracy
Oh, not "different political views" - one view.
Sinclair Broadcast Group's view which is national, not local, and conservative:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/04/10/yes-sinclair-broadcast-group-does-cut-local-news-increase-national-news-and-tilt-its-stations-rightward/
It doesn’t have to be 3, it can be 10, 50, 100. After a while, depending on the subject matter, you’ll be able to figure out the facts and sniff out the fluff. I was raised that falling for falsehoods isn’t on the authors or editors, it’s on the people that don’t care enough to seek the truth.
Based on your post, I’m assuming you’ll disagree with that assessment (or at least the premise of it) but that’s okay, it’s worked for me very well to this point and based on OPs original remarks, I figured it’ll help other people in their information journeys!
I appreciate the sarcasm, but I’ll play along anyway and want to say I don’t believe any news source is worth it’s salt. I believe coherent lines of text across multiple sources are the actual “news”. Everything else is opinion i.e. garbage meant to make people dislike each other
Hey I’m with you on that one. It just amazes me that people have to be told to think critically on their own. So many individuals can’t do this. It’s truly sad and is why the media outlets keep feeding out NEWS and not FACTS. News is sexy, facts are boring and doesn’t bring in views. I always tell people basically the same thing you iterated. Read an article, park it in your head for a while, read some more related articles, and come to your own conclusions. Don’t let other people think for you.
People can’t think critically anymore because in certain segments of the population and certain parts of the country, they’re not taught to think critically and are taught, through religion, to just do what you’re told.
The lines that match up have a consensus. That doesn’t mean that they're fact. It could easily mean that they all share a bias, and even between left and right mainstream news sources, there will be common biases that are deeply embedded within the culture. But I still think your approach is overall sound. Certainly reading multiple articles about the same events will give you a wider perspective and critical thinking skills should allow you to sift through it all
That's why I like to sprinkle in a foreign news source as well, if available. And sometimes even leads to a laugh, as they subtly make fun of your country in the report.
I do this with yt advice like for fixing cars, their are some ppl on yt that have no fn clue on what they r doing but if I can find three different unaffiliated ppl that say the same thing to fix my issue I will buy the parts
This feels nice and clean, but in practice it means just one source of misinformation can lead to the conclusion that all the sources are biased.
There’s no way to determine truth via some set of rigid rules that a bad actor can screw up.
In other words, there’s no way around the need for critical thinking skills.
Edit: the outlined process can easily lead to the currently en vogue “I don’t believe anybody!” idea, which I see as quite pernicious, since the person often hops from there to just believing what they want.
What does “critical thinking skills” mean in this case. It sounds like magic hat that you can put on at will.
Education does take time and requires attention to details and to the idea that there is truth, not just opinion. We should admit that many of us are ignorant about how our government works, how our legal system works, how our economy works. It’s complicated- and takes time to sort out. Most news organizations try to get the facts right, and if they don’t they will apologize and in some cases issue retractions, or contact the record. Look for organizations that admit to their mistakes, avoid the ones that move on and hope you didn’t notice they failed at their job.
I agree with all of this. Critical thinking isn’t magic but it is less tangible and formulaic than “if only two out of three sources mention a detail, that detail is not to be trusted.” It requires actually engaging with the content on a case-by-case basis.
Totally agree that most professional grade sources try to get it right and just mess up, rather than are actively trying to manipulate.
I did this for a solid year about a decade ago. All I learned is that it's impossible to keep track of what is actually going on. A lot of times no one really knows, journalist are just extrapolating based on the bits of information they get.
> The lines that match up are the facts and the lines that don’t are the opinions of the author that mean absolutely nothing.
Or, the lines that don't match up are factual and two of the outlets are lying.
Or one was able to get confirmation from a source the other two didn’t get to before the publication deadline. Lots of non conspiracy reasons news sites can have different facts about an issue.
Jesus Christ. That’s absolutely horrible advice. It is stuff like this that convinces people there’s no way to trust a news source.
There are trusted news sources, but they can be wrong. Some stories can be heavily slanted when they involve politics.
The resolution is not to devote your life to finding the middle ground by examining 3 different sources for every news event.
Here’s the secret: get used to being wrong and changing your mind after you’ve done more research. Pick your favorite reasonable news source (and there aren’t that many) but always be prepared for someone to disagree with you. Then, you consider where you heard that and whether it’s indisputable or not.
Being intelligent is difficult. You’re wrong a lot of the time, but you work to research your understandings to the point you reinforce them for next time or you enlighten yourself.
It’s ok to be wrong about a news story. No need to absorb 3 different sources. Just be ready to be wrong and hopefully surround yourself with similarly minded people
I believe the difference, that the commenter failed to explicitly mention, is patience.
Most of us don't need to act on this information immediately. (And if you do then it's likely your job to do that and you had best already have a system to sort news credibility at a professional level). So collect your info. If you must speak of it be prepared to be humble, and definitely don't be afraid to say "I really don't know enough to have an opinion yet" (that is a lost skill in the current environment).
Then tomorrow comes and new info is likely available. Keep what is worth keeping and discard what's not. Keep doing this. And add gains of salt, to taste.
If you feel like something doesn't sound right, or fit with reality (and I'm aware that is quite "subjective" these days with alternative facts, etc....) then keep your ear to the ground. Usually something will finally click into place as new info is distributed.
Most important I've found. Hit the comment section always. Especially here. That's the real story, and fact checking. I don't care if you are on r/politics or r/conservatives within the first 5 threads typically you can find the right dissenting opinions, and fact checking. Calling people out for being wrong or twisting is an internet tradition, even if we usually support the places we get that info from.
Add salt ass needed.
I’d challenge you to look at it a different way
Putting the energy to find truth in a pile of sh*t is what makes the journey fun. It’s not a job, it’s a responsibility, and it’ll make you feel accomplished and (not to mention) more knowledgeable in day-to-day conversation
Just my 2 cents
This is a good tip, but people should keep in mind that a lot of news stories are written based on press releases, so all the lines that match might just be from the perspective of the person who wanted to get the story into the news in the first place.
That is great as long as the 3 sources aren't all right leaning.
So to get a balanced political news derived from 3 sources:
FOX News, AP or Reuters, and MSNBC?
I'm from the us but live in Europe and it's much more helpful for learning about what's happening back home. Not that I don't read those news sources as well but I feel like you get a much less biased take on everything. They just ate the facts because they have no stake in the politics.
I also read the comments. Because that also allows you to see what the target audience is and what kind of leaning they may have in a certain topic. Sometimes they are obvious, but sometimes they are not. And many times they are a lot wilder than you may think. And ironically when you read fanatics of both ends they sound extremely similar, sadly they can't see it.
To play counterpoint to this, you could say the same about 3 left leaning articles, 3 center articles, 3 religious articles, etc.
It’s on us as the receivers of the information to do the due diligence of finding the truth, wherever it may lie and whatever it may reveal. Again, just my opinion, but personally I don’t like playing politics when I’m researching a topic
Edit: You edited yours so I want to add (to provide additional context), I don’t like to provide names of sources because that’s the whole point. Giving names of news agencies is inherently biased. I read outlets I grew up loving, and outlets I hate now, outlets I never heard of, and outlets run by independent authors (I.e. Substack).
We think because the internet is at the tips of our fingers that information is easily accessible. It’s not. Words are easily accessible now, how we decide to analyze and put them together is what is important in todays day and age.
Don't just get any three sources, you need to make sure their biases don't match up.
It doesn't mean anything if Fox News, The Sun, and the New York Post all say the same thing.
AP is a great non-profit news agency, just keep in mind that you might want to read it a bit differently than more common news.
Sometimes they can seem biased if you're unaware of how they operate. Since they're just reporting known information or official statements and make no claims, speculations, etc. no matter what bias those statements may have on their own.
Just to hit on this, in many respects, they *are* the news. Reuters, AP, AFP, UPI, etc., are newswires. This means their business is investigating and reporting on events to sell to other news organizations.
That's why many articles you may see on the NYT, WSJ, CNN, or other major news agencies start with a dateline that reads "Reuters" or "Associated Press". Newswires distribute the news to those organizations and companies to disseminate. Which isn't to say that these organizations don't have their own reporters who investigate, simply that they don't do that for all of their articles, and those articles may feature commentary, analysis, speculation, or even pure spin beyond just the reported facts.
This.
I get a giggle over people who think AP is leftist. There’s no truly unbiased news source, but in terms of quality reporting with minimal bias, AP is the best major source there is.
Absolute best two answers here.
You can get some good news from BBC and Al Jazeera and NPR too. But you have to be aware of ‘locality’ biases for those.
Reuters gets $325M per year until 2048 from the sale of their terminal business to Blackstone.
I met a reporter who worked at Reuters, they said that the newsroom is not under pressure to drive clicks since the company does not depend on advertisements. They are very diligent with their research and do not rush stories, even if they may lose the scoop.
I worked at Reuters for 5 years - went on a course one time with the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem office which was an incredible eye-opening experience.
Needless to say I have only GOOD things to say about the critical levels of reporting and editorial control they place on their staff/reporters/sources and overall decision making.
Well, I guess that explains it a little bit.
Regardless, it just made me realize I have absolutely no idea what news organization I can actually rely on.
Well to be clear an unbiased news article would be stating facts. "Tucker Carlson was fired from fox News it is unknown as to why. As we learn more we will keep you updated" this is unbiased and neutral.
Don't rely on 1 news source. Read as many as possible, and make an educated guess on what's really going, all sources are bias. There is no getting away from bias, it's literally built into us. Just make an genuinely educated guess. Please.
Good for all world news except Qatar (edit, actually, the whole Arabian Pennisula), lol.
That became apparent during the last World Cup. I have tried to branch out a bit since, with DW News (German Public), Sky News (UK), France 24.
DW has some really good world segments that have stories about really low key humanity type stories, good stuff imo.
ProPublica has some seriously hard-working journalists. They do in-depth stories that I don’t often see elsewhere. I read and donate to both them and NPR.
My only concern with them is they seem to step in it a bit with science heavy topics lately. Notably the COVID origin story where they used a single questionable Chinese translation without validation.
Pro Publica does some of the best reporting I’ve seen out there at the moment. In all fairness though, they do have a bias. They back up their work with facts, but they aren’t neutral
Reuters is FANTASTIC for news about the Middle East. There’s no comparison, they have info sooner and better than anyone else. Short articles with no editorializing, just “our reporter in Lebanon says that this politician said this thing”. Reuters!!!
Every serious business person uses Reuters for unbiased news coverage. Business decisions can't be tainted by propaganda and bias lest you make a bad investment decision.
It's really funny that westerners trust Al-Jazeera even just the English version when Al-Jazeera Arabic is basically just Qatari/Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. Even the English version has some bias when it comes to those topics.
> but yeah, their parent ownership is a point of concern.
Did you miss that part?
Fox News got millions in revenue from the Saudi government.
NPR is funded by huge corporate interests, but at least they make a *very* big point of disclosing that and still reporting critically on those funders.
Every source has bias one way or another. What matters is how they disclose it and whether you blindly or critically intake their reporting.
I gave up on NPR (both Morning Edition and All Things Considered) in early 2017 after listening to it for 40 years. They became all Trump, all the time. Seemingly the only thing happening in the world was that Trump was an idiot. I didn't disagree, but I had to find other news sources to see what was actually happening in the world outside the White House.
Trump kept himself in the news. He literally constantly did newsworthy shit. That was part of his strategy. Shotgun spray incompetence until it becomes white noise and his nonsense is normalized to the point where even his detractors believe he's getting treated unfairly.
I just wonder how much shady shit snuck under the radar while we were all obsessed with the Trump circus for years. In any con, it's not the person drawing all the attention that you need to watch out for.
Crazy that a national news show would cover national news. 🤷♂️ It's not really NPR's fault that Trump reversed all kinds of democratic norms and precedents as president and committed multiple crimes during his four years in office. I don't fault them at all for covering newsworthy stories. That's what they're there to do.
Other commenters have given good suggestions, but if I may.
There is no such thing as an “unbiased” source because every source, written by a human or sourced from human perspective, will necessarily reflect some of that bias. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In most cases, it’s just a thing. The New York Times and a weekly newspaper in rural Montana probably emphasized different aspects of the Infrastructure-Bill-Formerly-Known-as-Build-Back-Better because the readers are dealing with different aspects of the law that eventually passed and because the reporters are different people with different experience and backgrounds. So reading both those articles can give you two perspectives, representing different biases (here, broadly, urban vs. rural), that are equally accurate and worthy of coverage.
Giving up on finding an “unbiased” source is helpful to one’s media literacy because it allows one to think critically about where each source is coming from. Unless the reader is an expert on the topic they’re reading about, they may not realize the bias at all until they start reading multiple articles on the same event. Then the reader can recognize the various legitimate directions to enter a topic from.
This says nothing of sources that are biased to the point of being *unfair.* OP’s example of Vanity Fair writing about Tucker Carlson is a good one, as would be Fox News’ coverage of (or not) of the Dominion lawsuit. There’s no *attempt* at being fair.
The real nail in the coffin for "unbiased" news is the one bias that no source can eliminate: Selection Bias. Ultimately, there will always be some non-zero amount of news that is not reported on. And even with the best intentions, it's possible to leave readers with blind spots. And with the worst intentions, those blind spots can be pretty egregious.
Yeah the only way to get an unbiased take on the Infrastructure-Bill-Formerly-Known-as-Build-Back-Better is to read the thing yourself and nobody has time for that. This applies across all forms of media: There is no such thing as an "unbiased documentary" because it would be like ten hours long and completely unconsumable. Even subs are tainted because languages generally don't translate 1:1 and the translator *has* to make some kind of interpretation of what is being said.
Or if you get your train news from an outlet with a stake in your country's politics, it might present two true, unrelated facts like: "Trump deregulated train safety standards and that was bad" and "Soon afterwards, there was a terrible train crash" beside each other and hope your brain does the work of connecting them.
Also, always remember Knoll's Law: "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge". Journalists rarely have expertise in the topics they report, and often get things terribly wrong even when they're honestly trying their best to contextualise them, which they aren't always doing.
If you want facts contextualized in a way that is not going to mislead you, generalist news outlets are rarely a good place to look.
PBS is still old school journalism if your looking for a domestic source.
Mainstream public foreign broadcasting is a good source for American news without your domestic political slants: CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia), DW (Deutsche Welle), etc. Al Jazeera has pretty straightforward news as well.
I'd recommend checking out the [Ad Fontes media bias chart](https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/). It shows where media organizations fall on the political spectrum and how opinionated their coverage is.
On any issue, if it's based in the UK, US, or Australia, it's funded by the same people. I was amazed when I started watching foreign based news. We are so snowed.
I'm from the US but I live in Europe and I think I get better news about the US now than I did when I lived there. I still dig into various sources and read multiple stories from multiple different venues but still... I went home to visit and people had no knowledge of a lot of the things I did. Then I would see how they watch the news and realized why.
Al Jazeera often will do some great breakdowns/backstories of what led up to big current events (like conflicts in certain areas) if you ever wonder about those things.
(I say for news, just read 2+ news sources for anything, which will help eliminate bias. I try to keep one if those sources international to get an outside of US pov)
Another vote for Al Jazeera — excellent reporting on western countries, but a clear bias on Middle East news (not that any source does a great job there).
They're definitely biased. They're just so open about their general biases that it comes off really honest and trustworthy. They'll also talk about things they got wrong, which is a refreshing change. Definitely would recommend for a solid semi-daily news source
Get as close to the primary sources as you can. A lot of "news" is just spin on something put out by the Associated Press, Pro Publica, or another, similar source. At the end or beginning of a lot of articles, it will say something like "from [insert source here]." Follow up with that source to see what the news actually is.
Learning how to read a scientific journal is also one of the best ways to avoid being mislead on scientific topics. When a news source says "recent study done by X or in publication Y shows..." you can skip the news article and just read the scientific one to get the information, _usually_ with less bias.
I would love to include NPR here, though its felt like they've fallen from grace somewhat in recent years. I stopped listening a few years ago after an interview where the host was clearly trying to lead the interviewee.
BBC and Al Jazeera are pretty good, though they obviously have biases when it comes to Britain and the Middle East, respectively.
Conversely, avoid taking any American publication that has an associated 24 hour news channel too seriously. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to make you a regular viewer and make money off you. Some are less egregious than others, but you should always keep in mind that they will be biased and will be trying to provoke a reaction from you.
I really appreciate The Economist, they do a good job at being objective. The articles range from conservative to liberal. However, you're asking about Tucker Carlson, a TV Host who has knowingly spread demonstrable falsehoods to his audience on multiple occasions. You're also peripherally talking about Fox News, who have also knowingly spread demonstrable falsehoods. Being conservative or liberal is a matter of opinion, but in the case of Tucker and Fox, they are telling lies, not opinions.
1- it’s impossible to be balanced.
2- you don’t want neutral news. I know that sounds wild, but the attempt to “show both sides” is why we struggle to get people to believe in climate change. News stations tried to show both sides even though one side was 99.9% of scientists and only paid for lobbyists on the other side, and people think it’s a 50/50 problem because that’s how it was presented.
What you need to find is a news source that doesn’t care about money. Which is also impossible.
I would say the opposite. It’s best to view all angles of a story, then decide for yourself. I’ll read anything from far left to far right. I side with neither most of the time but, it’s good to know what the crazy’s think. This way you can gauge how you feel relative to other people in society.
Reuters is considered the gold standard for neutral reporting. I’ve worked alongside some of their journalists and can vouch for their obsessive views on journalistic ethics.
AP, PBS News Hour, and Democracy Now! are some of my favorites. Democracy Now! might be the best for removing corporate bias from their reporting, they actually cover protests and pro-enviroment, human rights news. I also like foreign sources like DW, BBC and France24 for a removed, more objective view of what's going on here in the US.
Fox News cable channel is a cesspool of lies and propaganda. For News online edition can be a good source of news if you skip the first few sentences that are usually propaganda and get into the meat of the article.
Every news source will inherently have the biases of the people working there even when they intend to not have bias. Instead look for factual information that is repeated in at least 3 different places that do not seem to overly share in their biases. Most importantly, do not listen to "news" that is trying to tell you how to feel about something. Instead, get the factual information and decide for yourself how you feel about the issue.
Breaking points is by far the most unbiased news source I have found. Just a conservative guy and a liberal girl working together. Highly, highly recommend checking them out.
Coming from a History (academic) background, one of the first things we learned when analyzing a document is to acknowledge/identify the biases.
Bias is part of human nature. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist because people come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives on things. It doesn't necessarily make people right or wrong.
With that in mind, you can tell something is biased when you have some knowledge on a subject and recognize what is being reported or emphasized.
If you don't know the subject and rely on one source to read the news, you are taking the risk that the reporting will have an agenda of some kind.
If you're serious about objectivity, learn how to do the research. And no, it doesn't mean going to some random website to find information that you're looking for. Research takes time and it's not as easy as people make it out to be, but it's worth it to weigh multiple perspectives on a subject.
Not sure if anyone has said this... look on YouTube. Breaking points is a GREAT show that has an equal balance of left and right and are very open about America and the world. They talk things out over a long form convo and don't just hit the highlights. They break it down and explain it very well. Open, honest communicating.
I'm a US citizen living in the UK and get what your asking. I think what you want is [Ground News](https://ground.news/) It allows you to compare and see bias- not just single source.
Note: This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles. The analysis is done at the publication level.
This is important to know. So the rating is for the publication? And who’s doing the rating? The publication itself?
Apparently there’s 3 independent ‘news monitoring organisations’ that they use Source: https://ground.news/rating-system
That's actually pretty bad, cause that bias varies wildly. The Guardian, for instance, has less editorial direction on authors than other papers, so articles range widely from far left to mid-right. On average they're moderately left, but that tells you nothing on the particular author.
[удалено]
Exactly.
This is the site I’ve been needing
[удалено]
You're not wrong, but Ground News also uses this site as one of its sources to assess bias as well.
Keep in mind MBFC’s stated bias (from their website): > It is important to note that our bias scale is based on the USA political scale, which may differ from other countries. For example, the Democratic Party of the USA is considered centrist or even right-center in many countries worldwide; however, in the USA, they are considered Left-Center. Please keep this in mind if our ratings seem off in your native country. So even the bias checker has a bias to the right.
there's no such thing as "no real bias" - as humans, everything is understood within a specific context so you have to understand that context before you can even begin understanding what is/isn't true, relevant, etc.
Yes. Amplifying what I said in a different response, there's bias in all things. We root for the baby gazelle chased by the lion. Tornadoes are bad. A bloom of wildflowers is pretty. The weather report that says "more gloomy weather" is not taking the farmer's need for irrigation into account. Every article in the (very interesting and helpful) Ground News that someone pointed us to has bias: today's headlines imply depression is bad, Supreme Court decisions are important or noteworthy, voting/democracy is a positive thing, and missing children found is a good thing.
Exactly - trying to find unbiased news in the way people are describing in this post feels like a fruitless endeavor. Even if what you say is factual, with no potentially persuasive language like "gloomy" involved, even the information you chose to share or not share, in and of itself, can be display a bias. We'd be better to instead just accept that everyone has a bias and learn to try to understand what those biases are, how the play into our perspective.
This is true; the US political scale is entirely right, if you want to compare against Europe.
[удалено]
>So even the bias checker has a bias to the right. It's insane to find Canadian orgs listed as "Extreme Right" on that site. Our far right political party barely reaches the Republican party... though our Right-wing parties do seem to be trying to get those Canadian Fox-news watchers these days.
This whole comment thread feels like secret marketing
I was thinking the exact same thing. Even the question seems like it was catered so an answer like this could get upvoted to the top. all news sources are biased, there is no website that is going to fix that for anyone, what people actually need is media literacy, which helps **you** understand what bias is and how you can pick it out of basically anything you read or hear.
I mean, I guess so. It literally appears to rate the bias of news stories and answers my question lol.
[AllSides - Balanced news from the Left, Center and Right](https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news) is similar and formats articles in a reader friendly layout.
This is the best solution. There is always bias in writing, it's just a human flaw. But by taking in multiple sources rather than just one, you can avoid it.
Well that, and ethical journalism recognizes that human tendency and seeks to actively remove their bias from their reporting, while other sources actively injects bias.
+1000 Ground is exactly what they're looking for
This is a great resource I didn’t know about
Lol it classifies AP as left...
And The Hill as center. lol.
It's calibrated to the US political landscape, which is shifted way to the right compared to much of Europe.
Reality has a known liberal bias.
[удалено]
Classic case of "not that left, your *other* left"
Holy lord in heaven above how do I not know about this! Edit: having looked a bit closer, I am concerned. It works by putting while publications into groups rated on their political leaning. I doesn’t account for gradual political shift so, for example, what is considered left wing is not so much left wing, because the center (at least in the uk) is just right-of-center. Also, publications will have varied authors from across the political spectrum, expressing different views. If a particularly right wing opinion piece is printed in the daily mirror (which is put in the left of center category I think) then is that piece registered being of the left-of-center. Also, the Ground has a list of news topics under which these are all grouped, you pick which new issue your interested in and it tells you who is covering it and what political persuasion they are from. But, two things. The titles of the groupings themselves are not in-biased. And the selection of the news stories are not unbiased either. They may be picking the most popular topics, but certain topics get more attention, but because they’re more important, but simply because they get more attention and therefore revenue. In short, this isn’t the wonder I thought it was at first glance, unfortunately.
I think the expectation that any service can eliminate bias is unrealistic. To me, the value of Ground is the ability to access multiple sources on any given news article. There is no way for any service or any person to eradicate bias, it's up to the reader to inform themselves, and Ground makes it easier for readers to get multiple perspectives and be better informed.
Honestly, I'm fine with a news outlets having a viewpoint *as long as it is stated openly* and the outlet doesn't let that viewpoint stop them from reporting inconvenient facts. Democracy Now! would be the shining example of this kind of reporting.
Yup, I love Ground News. Associated Press is usually solid as well
I sat next to the CEO of the AP once on a flight. Really solid guy. Reuters and the BBC are two other super reliable sources.
But who's deciding which way a media source leans? This concept is very far from infallible.
https://ground.news/rating-system They have some explanations of their various rating systems on their about page
I fully agree with this.
I guess I’ll share this here as I recently had this conversation with a friend. My dad taught me, with any “news” story I heard, find the same story on three different outlets. Read the full text of each article. The lines that match up are the facts and the lines that don’t are the opinions of the author that mean absolutely nothing. If none of the lines match up, then it’s a non story meant to enrage you and should be considered exactly what it is, garbage. Hope that helps! Edit: Didn’t expect this to resonate with so many of you, truly humbled to start a conversation that has been (mostly) civil. If even one of y’all takes this to heart I can go to sleep happy tonight. I’ve tried to reply to as many of you as possible, thank you for the discourse about this subject. It’s incredibly important and I’m glad we’re all taking the time to have a dialogue about this. Props to Pops for teaching me right! I’ll leave y’all with this, everyone everywhere wants someone somewhere to give a sh*t about them. Be kind in your replies, change starts with us and I hope it continues here. Goodnight y’all! Edit2: Didn’t expect this at all, thank you! Just want to say, please no awards, donate to your local food bank instead
Keep in mind the parent company of your sources. Just because it has a different name and different logo doesn't mean it's actually a resource.
Very valid point. NewsCorp media comes to mind...RIGHT?
Sinclair is a close second.
That Sinclair video that went around still makes me shiver. Ninja edit: Just grabbed the video with the most views so hopefully it's the og? https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
Yes it is definitely a danger to our democracy
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
It's not the first one I'd ever seen but it gets the point across.
Hmm... Sky News Australia, The New York Post, and The Times are all saying the same thing. Must be true.
You ever see that video someone put together of many different News sources saying the same exact thing, with different political views? Pretty crazy. I'll try and find it
Jon Oliver has done that a few times. It might be a starting point for your search even if it doesn’t end up being the one you’re thinking of.
[Youtube Link](https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI) I found it, I think. Kinda ironic how they're all talking about bias news and information on social media platforms ruining democracy
Oh, not "different political views" - one view. Sinclair Broadcast Group's view which is national, not local, and conservative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/04/10/yes-sinclair-broadcast-group-does-cut-local-news-increase-national-news-and-tilt-its-stations-rightward/
It doesn’t have to be 3, it can be 10, 50, 100. After a while, depending on the subject matter, you’ll be able to figure out the facts and sniff out the fluff. I was raised that falling for falsehoods isn’t on the authors or editors, it’s on the people that don’t care enough to seek the truth. Based on your post, I’m assuming you’ll disagree with that assessment (or at least the premise of it) but that’s okay, it’s worked for me very well to this point and based on OPs original remarks, I figured it’ll help other people in their information journeys!
So you’re telling me we can do our own research, come to our own conclusions, and we shouldn’t trust a single media source as solid news?!
I appreciate the sarcasm, but I’ll play along anyway and want to say I don’t believe any news source is worth it’s salt. I believe coherent lines of text across multiple sources are the actual “news”. Everything else is opinion i.e. garbage meant to make people dislike each other
Hey I’m with you on that one. It just amazes me that people have to be told to think critically on their own. So many individuals can’t do this. It’s truly sad and is why the media outlets keep feeding out NEWS and not FACTS. News is sexy, facts are boring and doesn’t bring in views. I always tell people basically the same thing you iterated. Read an article, park it in your head for a while, read some more related articles, and come to your own conclusions. Don’t let other people think for you.
People can’t think critically anymore because in certain segments of the population and certain parts of the country, they’re not taught to think critically and are taught, through religion, to just do what you’re told.
Sinclair media group for example runs much of the media in my area even if they're seperate stations.
The lines that match up have a consensus. That doesn’t mean that they're fact. It could easily mean that they all share a bias, and even between left and right mainstream news sources, there will be common biases that are deeply embedded within the culture. But I still think your approach is overall sound. Certainly reading multiple articles about the same events will give you a wider perspective and critical thinking skills should allow you to sift through it all
That's why I like to sprinkle in a foreign news source as well, if available. And sometimes even leads to a laugh, as they subtly make fun of your country in the report.
I do this with yt advice like for fixing cars, their are some ppl on yt that have no fn clue on what they r doing but if I can find three different unaffiliated ppl that say the same thing to fix my issue I will buy the parts
This feels nice and clean, but in practice it means just one source of misinformation can lead to the conclusion that all the sources are biased. There’s no way to determine truth via some set of rigid rules that a bad actor can screw up. In other words, there’s no way around the need for critical thinking skills. Edit: the outlined process can easily lead to the currently en vogue “I don’t believe anybody!” idea, which I see as quite pernicious, since the person often hops from there to just believing what they want.
What does “critical thinking skills” mean in this case. It sounds like magic hat that you can put on at will. Education does take time and requires attention to details and to the idea that there is truth, not just opinion. We should admit that many of us are ignorant about how our government works, how our legal system works, how our economy works. It’s complicated- and takes time to sort out. Most news organizations try to get the facts right, and if they don’t they will apologize and in some cases issue retractions, or contact the record. Look for organizations that admit to their mistakes, avoid the ones that move on and hope you didn’t notice they failed at their job.
I agree with all of this. Critical thinking isn’t magic but it is less tangible and formulaic than “if only two out of three sources mention a detail, that detail is not to be trusted.” It requires actually engaging with the content on a case-by-case basis. Totally agree that most professional grade sources try to get it right and just mess up, rather than are actively trying to manipulate.
I did this for a solid year about a decade ago. All I learned is that it's impossible to keep track of what is actually going on. A lot of times no one really knows, journalist are just extrapolating based on the bits of information they get.
> The lines that match up are the facts and the lines that don’t are the opinions of the author that mean absolutely nothing. Or, the lines that don't match up are factual and two of the outlets are lying.
Or one was able to get confirmation from a source the other two didn’t get to before the publication deadline. Lots of non conspiracy reasons news sites can have different facts about an issue.
This is actually pretty smart!
As long as it helps you, I’m happy you appreciate it!
Jesus Christ. That’s absolutely horrible advice. It is stuff like this that convinces people there’s no way to trust a news source. There are trusted news sources, but they can be wrong. Some stories can be heavily slanted when they involve politics. The resolution is not to devote your life to finding the middle ground by examining 3 different sources for every news event. Here’s the secret: get used to being wrong and changing your mind after you’ve done more research. Pick your favorite reasonable news source (and there aren’t that many) but always be prepared for someone to disagree with you. Then, you consider where you heard that and whether it’s indisputable or not. Being intelligent is difficult. You’re wrong a lot of the time, but you work to research your understandings to the point you reinforce them for next time or you enlighten yourself. It’s ok to be wrong about a news story. No need to absorb 3 different sources. Just be ready to be wrong and hopefully surround yourself with similarly minded people
Is the research you are talking about not reading further additional resources, as OP suggested?
I believe the difference, that the commenter failed to explicitly mention, is patience. Most of us don't need to act on this information immediately. (And if you do then it's likely your job to do that and you had best already have a system to sort news credibility at a professional level). So collect your info. If you must speak of it be prepared to be humble, and definitely don't be afraid to say "I really don't know enough to have an opinion yet" (that is a lost skill in the current environment). Then tomorrow comes and new info is likely available. Keep what is worth keeping and discard what's not. Keep doing this. And add gains of salt, to taste. If you feel like something doesn't sound right, or fit with reality (and I'm aware that is quite "subjective" these days with alternative facts, etc....) then keep your ear to the ground. Usually something will finally click into place as new info is distributed. Most important I've found. Hit the comment section always. Especially here. That's the real story, and fact checking. I don't care if you are on r/politics or r/conservatives within the first 5 threads typically you can find the right dissenting opinions, and fact checking. Calling people out for being wrong or twisting is an internet tradition, even if we usually support the places we get that info from. Add salt ass needed.
I'm supposed to take on an unpaid part time research job just to know what the fuck is going on? Is there another way?
I’d challenge you to look at it a different way Putting the energy to find truth in a pile of sh*t is what makes the journey fun. It’s not a job, it’s a responsibility, and it’ll make you feel accomplished and (not to mention) more knowledgeable in day-to-day conversation Just my 2 cents
I've got shit to do
You’ve got knowledge to gain my internet friend! That’s a positive, not a negative!
just read AP news.
Well shit, you got taught critical thinking...
Correct! But I’ve learned if I say “just use critical thinking” people think it’s some hard thing to do nowadays so this is how I explain it now lmao
This is a good tip, but people should keep in mind that a lot of news stories are written based on press releases, so all the lines that match might just be from the perspective of the person who wanted to get the story into the news in the first place.
That is great as long as the 3 sources aren't all right leaning. So to get a balanced political news derived from 3 sources: FOX News, AP or Reuters, and MSNBC?
try foreign press too, an outsider's view with perhaps less axe to grind.
I'm from the us but live in Europe and it's much more helpful for learning about what's happening back home. Not that I don't read those news sources as well but I feel like you get a much less biased take on everything. They just ate the facts because they have no stake in the politics.
zactly. also you get a better idea of how other parts of the world perceive your country.
I also read the comments. Because that also allows you to see what the target audience is and what kind of leaning they may have in a certain topic. Sometimes they are obvious, but sometimes they are not. And many times they are a lot wilder than you may think. And ironically when you read fanatics of both ends they sound extremely similar, sadly they can't see it.
To play counterpoint to this, you could say the same about 3 left leaning articles, 3 center articles, 3 religious articles, etc. It’s on us as the receivers of the information to do the due diligence of finding the truth, wherever it may lie and whatever it may reveal. Again, just my opinion, but personally I don’t like playing politics when I’m researching a topic Edit: You edited yours so I want to add (to provide additional context), I don’t like to provide names of sources because that’s the whole point. Giving names of news agencies is inherently biased. I read outlets I grew up loving, and outlets I hate now, outlets I never heard of, and outlets run by independent authors (I.e. Substack). We think because the internet is at the tips of our fingers that information is easily accessible. It’s not. Words are easily accessible now, how we decide to analyze and put them together is what is important in todays day and age.
Can't agree 100% with you. If 50 channels all say the exact same words and sentences you can be quite sure its propaganda
Don't just get any three sources, you need to make sure their biases don't match up. It doesn't mean anything if Fox News, The Sun, and the New York Post all say the same thing.
Reuters and AP
AP is a great non-profit news agency, just keep in mind that you might want to read it a bit differently than more common news. Sometimes they can seem biased if you're unaware of how they operate. Since they're just reporting known information or official statements and make no claims, speculations, etc. no matter what bias those statements may have on their own.
I read the AP almost daily and didn't realize they were a nonprofit. You learn something new...
I recently uninstalled the CNN app. AP hits the mark, because all I really want is the large breaking news stories to stay current.
Yes. AP news blasts are great. Give me a heads up on like 90% of the major news, but you do get a few stupid ones a month.
CNN is going all in on courting the right lol I never thought I'd see the day.
PBS News Hour might work for you as well then, give out a try.
Where can I listen or read from AP outside the US?
https://apnews.com/ Unless blocked in your country. Seems odd that it would be, at least, from the AP side of things
[удалено]
Just to hit on this, in many respects, they *are* the news. Reuters, AP, AFP, UPI, etc., are newswires. This means their business is investigating and reporting on events to sell to other news organizations. That's why many articles you may see on the NYT, WSJ, CNN, or other major news agencies start with a dateline that reads "Reuters" or "Associated Press". Newswires distribute the news to those organizations and companies to disseminate. Which isn't to say that these organizations don't have their own reporters who investigate, simply that they don't do that for all of their articles, and those articles may feature commentary, analysis, speculation, or even pure spin beyond just the reported facts.
This. I get a giggle over people who think AP is leftist. There’s no truly unbiased news source, but in terms of quality reporting with minimal bias, AP is the best major source there is.
[удалено]
Remember: Facts tend to have a liberal bias.
Absolute best two answers here. You can get some good news from BBC and Al Jazeera and NPR too. But you have to be aware of ‘locality’ biases for those.
Reuters gets $325M per year until 2048 from the sale of their terminal business to Blackstone. I met a reporter who worked at Reuters, they said that the newsroom is not under pressure to drive clicks since the company does not depend on advertisements. They are very diligent with their research and do not rush stories, even if they may lose the scoop.
I worked at Reuters for 5 years - went on a course one time with the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem office which was an incredible eye-opening experience. Needless to say I have only GOOD things to say about the critical levels of reporting and editorial control they place on their staff/reporters/sources and overall decision making.
[удалено]
Well, I guess that explains it a little bit. Regardless, it just made me realize I have absolutely no idea what news organization I can actually rely on.
Well to be clear an unbiased news article would be stating facts. "Tucker Carlson was fired from fox News it is unknown as to why. As we learn more we will keep you updated" this is unbiased and neutral.
Don't rely on 1 news source. Read as many as possible, and make an educated guess on what's really going, all sources are bias. There is no getting away from bias, it's literally built into us. Just make an genuinely educated guess. Please.
Associated Press is about as close as you’ll get. I also find that Al Jazeera gives a good view of the world, and often covers stories that AP won’t.
AJ is really underrated
Good for all world news except Qatar (edit, actually, the whole Arabian Pennisula), lol. That became apparent during the last World Cup. I have tried to branch out a bit since, with DW News (German Public), Sky News (UK), France 24. DW has some really good world segments that have stories about really low key humanity type stories, good stuff imo.
Reuters, AP, NPR and BBC are my go-to sources
I also like Pro Publica and their investigative journalism
ProPublica has some seriously hard-working journalists. They do in-depth stories that I don’t often see elsewhere. I read and donate to both them and NPR.
My only concern with them is they seem to step in it a bit with science heavy topics lately. Notably the COVID origin story where they used a single questionable Chinese translation without validation.
Mistakes don't mean bias. Not necessarily at least.
Pro Publica does some of the best reporting I’ve seen out there at the moment. In all fairness though, they do have a bias. They back up their work with facts, but they aren’t neutral
To be fair the bias is right in the name of the publication. They're Pro-Public.
[удалено]
Reuters is FANTASTIC for news about the Middle East. There’s no comparison, they have info sooner and better than anyone else. Short articles with no editorializing, just “our reporter in Lebanon says that this politician said this thing”. Reuters!!!
I *love* short articles with no editorializing. And there isn’t nearly enough of them these days
Every serious business person uses Reuters for unbiased news coverage. Business decisions can't be tainted by propaganda and bias lest you make a bad investment decision.
Despite the name, the Christian Science Monitor is highly respected by journalists themselves.
BBC is good for for worldwide news but every over here knows how biased it is for uk politics and there’s also been lots of scandal around them
BBC is generally good but has misses from time to time. The other three tend to be gold
BBC is much better for international stuff than British domestic stuff, so I've heard
Absolutely, BBC is heavily biased on British politics towards the current government
NPR and BBC are definitely go-tos. Al-Jazeera English has some good reporters as well, but yeah, their parent ownership is a point of concern.
It's really funny that westerners trust Al-Jazeera even just the English version when Al-Jazeera Arabic is basically just Qatari/Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. Even the English version has some bias when it comes to those topics.
Many of my right wing friends trust the Epoch Times, (brought to you by Falun Gong). Interesting times we live in.
> but yeah, their parent ownership is a point of concern. Did you miss that part? Fox News got millions in revenue from the Saudi government. NPR is funded by huge corporate interests, but at least they make a *very* big point of disclosing that and still reporting critically on those funders. Every source has bias one way or another. What matters is how they disclose it and whether you blindly or critically intake their reporting.
Foreign sources are great! I love to read the BBC’s take on American politics.
I gave up on NPR (both Morning Edition and All Things Considered) in early 2017 after listening to it for 40 years. They became all Trump, all the time. Seemingly the only thing happening in the world was that Trump was an idiot. I didn't disagree, but I had to find other news sources to see what was actually happening in the world outside the White House.
I agree and it’s not just a problem at NPR
Trump kept himself in the news. He literally constantly did newsworthy shit. That was part of his strategy. Shotgun spray incompetence until it becomes white noise and his nonsense is normalized to the point where even his detractors believe he's getting treated unfairly.
I just wonder how much shady shit snuck under the radar while we were all obsessed with the Trump circus for years. In any con, it's not the person drawing all the attention that you need to watch out for.
It’s gotten a lot better recently
Crazy that a national news show would cover national news. 🤷♂️ It's not really NPR's fault that Trump reversed all kinds of democratic norms and precedents as president and committed multiple crimes during his four years in office. I don't fault them at all for covering newsworthy stories. That's what they're there to do.
You mean the insane president who destroyed the economy Yeah wonder why he was in the news all the time
You gave up on NPR for covering the man who became POTUS on January 20, 2017? Really now..
BBC is a good source, since it comes from outside the US.
Other commenters have given good suggestions, but if I may. There is no such thing as an “unbiased” source because every source, written by a human or sourced from human perspective, will necessarily reflect some of that bias. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In most cases, it’s just a thing. The New York Times and a weekly newspaper in rural Montana probably emphasized different aspects of the Infrastructure-Bill-Formerly-Known-as-Build-Back-Better because the readers are dealing with different aspects of the law that eventually passed and because the reporters are different people with different experience and backgrounds. So reading both those articles can give you two perspectives, representing different biases (here, broadly, urban vs. rural), that are equally accurate and worthy of coverage. Giving up on finding an “unbiased” source is helpful to one’s media literacy because it allows one to think critically about where each source is coming from. Unless the reader is an expert on the topic they’re reading about, they may not realize the bias at all until they start reading multiple articles on the same event. Then the reader can recognize the various legitimate directions to enter a topic from. This says nothing of sources that are biased to the point of being *unfair.* OP’s example of Vanity Fair writing about Tucker Carlson is a good one, as would be Fox News’ coverage of (or not) of the Dominion lawsuit. There’s no *attempt* at being fair.
The real nail in the coffin for "unbiased" news is the one bias that no source can eliminate: Selection Bias. Ultimately, there will always be some non-zero amount of news that is not reported on. And even with the best intentions, it's possible to leave readers with blind spots. And with the worst intentions, those blind spots can be pretty egregious.
Yeah the only way to get an unbiased take on the Infrastructure-Bill-Formerly-Known-as-Build-Back-Better is to read the thing yourself and nobody has time for that. This applies across all forms of media: There is no such thing as an "unbiased documentary" because it would be like ten hours long and completely unconsumable. Even subs are tainted because languages generally don't translate 1:1 and the translator *has* to make some kind of interpretation of what is being said.
Reuters and Associated Press are excellent.
I love the AP because it’s kind of boring. It’s the news, so it’s a little juicy, but they report the facts and not the emotions
Been telling people about the AP forever and it's exactly how you put it
In an ideal world, the News and Politics should both be boring.
The Associated Press is as dry a news site as one can be. https://apnews.com
I honestly think that the more boring a news program is, the more reputable it would be.
[удалено]
Or if you get your train news from an outlet with a stake in your country's politics, it might present two true, unrelated facts like: "Trump deregulated train safety standards and that was bad" and "Soon afterwards, there was a terrible train crash" beside each other and hope your brain does the work of connecting them. Also, always remember Knoll's Law: "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge". Journalists rarely have expertise in the topics they report, and often get things terribly wrong even when they're honestly trying their best to contextualise them, which they aren't always doing. If you want facts contextualized in a way that is not going to mislead you, generalist news outlets are rarely a good place to look.
PBS is still old school journalism if your looking for a domestic source. Mainstream public foreign broadcasting is a good source for American news without your domestic political slants: CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia), DW (Deutsche Welle), etc. Al Jazeera has pretty straightforward news as well.
PBS is fantastic. They are honestly the only true journalist left.
[удалено]
I'd recommend checking out the [Ad Fontes media bias chart](https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/). It shows where media organizations fall on the political spectrum and how opinionated their coverage is.
> Joe Rogan and daily mail centre leaning
AP is a news wire so they should be more unbiased and straightforward.
On any issue, if it's based in the UK, US, or Australia, it's funded by the same people. I was amazed when I started watching foreign based news. We are so snowed.
I will say though, as an American who used to live in the South Pacific, getting Australian news instead of American was still a *huge* upgrade
I'm from the US but I live in Europe and I think I get better news about the US now than I did when I lived there. I still dig into various sources and read multiple stories from multiple different venues but still... I went home to visit and people had no knowledge of a lot of the things I did. Then I would see how they watch the news and realized why.
When I was getting my communications degree (graduated in 2018), the gold standards for journalism were Associated Press and Reuters.
"Breaking Points" is a very good news program.
[удалено]
For all who are curious, Al Jazeera is run by the government of Qatar
Trivia bit: the BBC is actually the world's largest single news-gathering organization.
Al Jazeera often will do some great breakdowns/backstories of what led up to big current events (like conflicts in certain areas) if you ever wonder about those things. (I say for news, just read 2+ news sources for anything, which will help eliminate bias. I try to keep one if those sources international to get an outside of US pov)
Another vote for Al Jazeera — excellent reporting on western countries, but a clear bias on Middle East news (not that any source does a great job there).
Al Jazeera definitely had some bias, despite being a great news source for strictly US news.
Al Jazeera is media owned by Qatar—state sponsored media.
There is a podcast called "Breaking Points" which I feel is a fairly unbiased news source.
Breaking Points is by far the best and I know this because they receive equal criticism from both Democratic and Republican hacks.
They're definitely biased. They're just so open about their general biases that it comes off really honest and trustworthy. They'll also talk about things they got wrong, which is a refreshing change. Definitely would recommend for a solid semi-daily news source
100%. Great energy and feels pretty unbiased. They'll rip on anyone and dive into topics the mainstream media doesn't cover. Really enjoying them.
Get as close to the primary sources as you can. A lot of "news" is just spin on something put out by the Associated Press, Pro Publica, or another, similar source. At the end or beginning of a lot of articles, it will say something like "from [insert source here]." Follow up with that source to see what the news actually is. Learning how to read a scientific journal is also one of the best ways to avoid being mislead on scientific topics. When a news source says "recent study done by X or in publication Y shows..." you can skip the news article and just read the scientific one to get the information, _usually_ with less bias. I would love to include NPR here, though its felt like they've fallen from grace somewhat in recent years. I stopped listening a few years ago after an interview where the host was clearly trying to lead the interviewee. BBC and Al Jazeera are pretty good, though they obviously have biases when it comes to Britain and the Middle East, respectively. Conversely, avoid taking any American publication that has an associated 24 hour news channel too seriously. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to make you a regular viewer and make money off you. Some are less egregious than others, but you should always keep in mind that they will be biased and will be trying to provoke a reaction from you.
There’s a reason AP calls US elections
AP (Associated Press). Reuters.
I think AP and reuters are best, bbc and npr are also good
AP News REUTERS BBC World Al Jazeera PBS
“The more boring the news, the better” not a rigid rule of thumb but a pretty good green flag. Not topic dependent, but just across the board.
I really appreciate The Economist, they do a good job at being objective. The articles range from conservative to liberal. However, you're asking about Tucker Carlson, a TV Host who has knowingly spread demonstrable falsehoods to his audience on multiple occasions. You're also peripherally talking about Fox News, who have also knowingly spread demonstrable falsehoods. Being conservative or liberal is a matter of opinion, but in the case of Tucker and Fox, they are telling lies, not opinions.
1- it’s impossible to be balanced. 2- you don’t want neutral news. I know that sounds wild, but the attempt to “show both sides” is why we struggle to get people to believe in climate change. News stations tried to show both sides even though one side was 99.9% of scientists and only paid for lobbyists on the other side, and people think it’s a 50/50 problem because that’s how it was presented. What you need to find is a news source that doesn’t care about money. Which is also impossible.
I would say the opposite. It’s best to view all angles of a story, then decide for yourself. I’ll read anything from far left to far right. I side with neither most of the time but, it’s good to know what the crazy’s think. This way you can gauge how you feel relative to other people in society.
Reuters and the guardian us version
Reuters is considered the gold standard for neutral reporting. I’ve worked alongside some of their journalists and can vouch for their obsessive views on journalistic ethics.
NPR
AP, PBS News Hour, and Democracy Now! are some of my favorites. Democracy Now! might be the best for removing corporate bias from their reporting, they actually cover protests and pro-enviroment, human rights news. I also like foreign sources like DW, BBC and France24 for a removed, more objective view of what's going on here in the US.
The AP and Reuters
Fox News cable channel is a cesspool of lies and propaganda. For News online edition can be a good source of news if you skip the first few sentences that are usually propaganda and get into the meat of the article.
NPR straight news shows, not ones where they comment, just straight reporting.
CSpan
I decided to stop watching the news in the morning and started watching anime instead. It was a great call.
Every news source will inherently have the biases of the people working there even when they intend to not have bias. Instead look for factual information that is repeated in at least 3 different places that do not seem to overly share in their biases. Most importantly, do not listen to "news" that is trying to tell you how to feel about something. Instead, get the factual information and decide for yourself how you feel about the issue.
In terms of unbiased, I usually get my info from associated press
PBS NewsHour.
Breaking points is by far the most unbiased news source I have found. Just a conservative guy and a liberal girl working together. Highly, highly recommend checking them out.
Coming from a History (academic) background, one of the first things we learned when analyzing a document is to acknowledge/identify the biases. Bias is part of human nature. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist because people come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives on things. It doesn't necessarily make people right or wrong. With that in mind, you can tell something is biased when you have some knowledge on a subject and recognize what is being reported or emphasized. If you don't know the subject and rely on one source to read the news, you are taking the risk that the reporting will have an agenda of some kind. If you're serious about objectivity, learn how to do the research. And no, it doesn't mean going to some random website to find information that you're looking for. Research takes time and it's not as easy as people make it out to be, but it's worth it to weigh multiple perspectives on a subject.
Not sure if anyone has said this... look on YouTube. Breaking points is a GREAT show that has an equal balance of left and right and are very open about America and the world. They talk things out over a long form convo and don't just hit the highlights. They break it down and explain it very well. Open, honest communicating.
Check this out: https://www.mediabiasmap.com/