Another vote for The Week magazine. This is my favorite news source ever.
TV is a much more emotional medium. Therefore it is easier to be biased on TV than in writing which appeals to reason. I don’t think tv news is worth watching for other than entertainment or to get the weather.
Good point.
Do you have a basis for that comment or can you provide examples of partisan reporting by NPR?
Of course he can find any number of instances of NPR supporting a left wing viewpoint.
What won’t be mentioned are the number of times NPR supported a right wing viewpoint.
Further on the NPR News website and their position on that chart: they are in the right position vertically, that is, they are a good source of news about events, but less good as a source of in-depth reporting (with exceptions, they do have some extraordinarily perceptive long pieces from time to time). I tend to agree that they should be positioned a little further to the left on the chart, however.
I used to read The Economist, taking after my father, because although nominally conservatively oriented, they provide a ton of background information about the stories in the news as well as important but less-covered stories. My problem was that the articles were so long that I couldn’t finish one week’s issue before the next one came, and I finally gave up. Perhaps it’s time to look at them again. They are a paid site, however.
I’ve read an analysis of the guests on the Sunday morning political chat shows, pointing out that the vast majority of the guests are establishment political, media and corporate people. The idea is that these shows (and other media) have a bias against outsider viewpoints. There are other biases aside from whether they’re left-leaning or right-leaning.
This might be helpful.http://m.imgur.com/gallery/iPLkz
The Economist is hardly a conservative organ. It intentionally editorially fosters the idea of economic liberalism. It is, however, an excellent source of information, especially about political and economic doings around the world. It is a staple in my Saturday mailbox, and has been for years now.
Define “economic liberalism”, because I suspect that you mean what’s usually called “economic libertarianism”, which is conservative (just as “social libertarianism” is liberal).
Neutral sources? None (at least that everyone will think so). There never were. Expecting someone with a graph to be reliable is a joke. Who decides she’s reliable?
BBC, CBC? Government funded news? Forget it.
How many sources to the left of FOX ever stated that Trump might even have a chance? None. That tells you where their bias is and how reliable their reporting is. (Actually, I believe one person on CNN said Trump might have a chance, but he was laughed at and attacked.)
Here are some quotes for you to ponder.
“… it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies—unless one counts journalists.”
–George Orwell, “Homage to Catalonia” (1938)
“Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true—except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.”
–Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy (Erwin Knoll, editor, “The Progressive”)
“It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
–Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)
“Speaking as a lawprof who used to take calls from reporters, I eventually figured out that the reporter always had the idea of what I was going to say and would keep talking one way or another at me to try to get me to say it. When I realized that all my effort explaining things in a service-oriented way was wasted and the only quote that was used was the thing I could see, in retrospect, the reporter was taking up my time trying to get me to say, I stopped taking calls — to save time and to protect myself from distortion and exploitation.” – UWM law professor Ann Althouse, 2/4/17 12:11 PM Althouse: "Eric Trump’s business trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills."
“Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”
–George Orwell, “Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1943)
I love The Economist, but it is hardly non-partisan - indeed, it is express in its pre-Thatcherite Tory (socially liberal, economically conservative) positions.
This is like asking if there are any neutral sit-coms on network TV. It’s the entertainment industry, folks. The winners are the ones that package a product that the advertisers will buy inn order to increase the share value of the entertainment corporation…
I was unwilling listener and found bias in at least 50% of the stories I heard.
Any source is going to have bias and opinions. The key is to ensure the source is open about it, not trying to soft-peddle their opinion as fact.
I am a huge fan of The Economist. It’s considered mildly center-right, which is more conservative than I am, but I don’t mind because (IMO) their treatment is comprehensive, fair, and unimpeachable. Downside: It’s a British newspaper. Though their US-centric news is fantastic, there may not be enough of it for you. Also you have to get used to international political terms - i.e. “neoliberal” is what an American might call conservative libertarian.
I repeat what I’ve often said before: NO, there are no neutral news sources. But we don’t NEED neutral sources- we need ACCURATE news sources.
And luckily, most mainstream sources of news ARE accurate, even when biased.
Do I believe the BBC is neutral? No- I consider them biased leftward. But I trust their facts, even when I’m suspicious of their motives.
Getting the facts right matters far more than neutrality.
I like NPR and PBS. They are terrified of losing their government funding and bend over backwards to be fair and balanced.
It’s business news and cover anything that will impact business. The news side is pretty much straight wire service news. So, you get the Trump executive order on immigration IMHO fairly free of bias. Very unlike say the US version of the Wall Street Journal, which presents it’s news through a decidedly conservative, pro wall street lens. (Oddly enough, I quite like the Wall Street JOurnal Asian edition, which doesn’t have that lens on).
Editorials of course are editorials and can slant. But for straight news its really good.
I am a huge fan of The Atlantic Monthly — it’s always been a great magazine, but has become more political in recent years. It has published a large number of in-depth articles on important American issues. It’s left-of-center, but its quality in-depth reporting and analysis often implies support for some conservative positions.
Interestingly, in the graphic linked above The Atlantic Monthly is shown in the mirror position to The Economist.
I agree that NPR, Reuters and, to a lesser extent, NY Times and WS Journal are reasonably good sources. The idea that NPR is left-biased seems … Alternate. I am also very curious what the objection is. (Frankly, when comparing American sources like NPR and CNN the left-right axis seems less relevant than the smart-dumb axis.)
Bias in the news is not in what they say, but in what they don’t say. In the editorial choice of which stories they will report and which they will not. Which potentially contributing factors they will mention and which they do not.
You can bias a story by saying what race some one is. But you can also bias a story by NOT saying what race some one is. Editorial neutrality requires the effort to judge whether it is germane to the story.