# Are there any actually impartial news sites? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 4, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589 "2016-11-04T06:08:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/21 "2016-11-04T23:27:37Z")
Come on, that’s not what he said. It’s just that Two Sides, Equal Time sets up false parameters and false equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/22 "2016-11-05T00:30:48Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Right, it’s not like people benefit from hearing at least two sides of an argument. > > Who needs that when you can have talk radio and Fox News. You only need ‘fact checking’ when you on,y have one voice. Sure. That’s why when they used to hold discussions on the shape of the Earth, they were always obligated to get two sides…someone to argue that the Earth is flat like a regular round pizza, and someone else to argue that the Earth is flat like one of those goofy Little Caesar’s square pizzas. Imagine how limited the fact checking would be if they had only one of those voices. The truth is somewhere in the middle, of course. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/23 "2016-11-05T01:17:56Z")
[www.bloomberg.com](http://www.bloomberg.com) is pretty impartial. It’s straight business news. The exception can be the editorials, but that’s clearly marked and doesn’t pretend to be news. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/24 "2016-11-05T05:32:01Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > And note that the so-called Fairness Doctrine only applied to radio and TV, on the theory that since there were only a limited number of broadcast channels possible, every station had to give equal time to “both sides”. It didn’t even require equal time. I think people confuse it with the equal time rule (which still exists), which causes them to overestimate how important it was. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/25 "2016-11-05T07:24:23Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Come on, that’s not what he said. It’s just that Two Sides, Equal Time sets up false parameters and false equivalence. But in the name of God it doesn’t lead to nothing more than media echo chambers and, ultimately, Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/26 "2016-11-05T18:18:30Z")
So your strategy is to make Fox News and right-wing talk radio illegal? What exactly is the reason video and audio media shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for a particular point of view, yet print media can and should? Or should we outlaw right-wing magazines, newspapers and websites while we’re at it? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/27 "2016-11-05T20:26:15Z")
Biased news sources have had a long and honorable history in the US. A century ago, most big cities had several daily papers, of different political stripes and different relationships to the truth, and usually appealing to certain well-defined ethnic groups. Back in NYC in the 30s, for instance, there were: _New York Times_ (Upscale, Jewish) _The New York Herald-Tribune_ (WASPs & Republicans) _Daily News_ (Italian,Irish & Jewish immigrants) _Daily Mirror_ (Sensationalist tabloid; I’m not sure of its audience) _Daily Worker_ (Communist) _Wall Street Journal_ (pretty much business news only) _New York Post \* (Democratic and Jewish) New York Sun The New York World-Telegram (Protestant, Democratic) The Journal-American.- (Catholic Democratic) The New York Graphic - pure, unadulterated sensationalism._ (The lack of Republican papers was due to the fact that NYC was, as it is now, strongly Democratic). All of the papers slanted the news to fit their audience. People bought multiple papers. What is interesting is that a Democrat would buy a Democratic paper and an Independent paper (that covered both sides). A Republican would buy a Republican paper, and an Independent one. Thus the independent papers got higher circulation and more ad revenue. \*The _Graphic_ folded in 1932, and made the most sensationalist news outlet today looked like the _New York Times_. Their big invention was the “composograph,” which allowed them to . . . well, today you’d call it “photoshopping” – creating composite images to illustrate stories. [Here’s an account](http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2013/07/composographs.html) It looks fake to our eyes, of course, but also looked fake back then. No one cared. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/28 "2016-11-06T08:50:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So your strategy is to make Fox News and right-wing talk radio illegal? > > What exactly is the reason video and audio media shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for a particular point of view, yet print media can and should? > > Or should we outlaw right-wing magazines, newspapers and websites while we’re at it? Your’re not really engaging with the point you quote. It’s a little ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589/29 "2016-11-06T09:35:17Z")
There used to be, but Walter Cronkite died. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-actually-impartial-news-sites/770589.md?page=1)