# Where do you go for comprehensive, unbiased news? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 18, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847 "2009-03-18T04:15:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/41 "2009-03-19T09:33:58Z")
Asylum writes: \> I also wouldn’t call the Washington Post “very liberal”. Liberal, sure, but having \> read a number of notable U.S. papers I think the Post is the best when it comes \> to just presenting the facts (NYT does a really good job too, but sometimes I \> feel like they’re pushing an agenda). Also, it does a damned good job of \> presenting opinions of people from various parts of the political spectrum. It’s \> required reading for anyone politically minded, left or right. Not bad for a local \> paper. Another difference between _The Washington Post_ and _The New York Times_ is that the writing in the _Times_ tends to be rather dry while the _Post_ works at more lively prose. Even the headlines in the _Post_ are more interesting. Also, the _Post_ has better criticism than the _Times_. Look at the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism: > **[Pulitzer Prize for Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Criticism)** > > The Pulitzer Prize for Criticism has been presented since 1970 to a newspaper writer in the United States who has demonstrated 'distinguished criticism'. Recipients of the award are chosen by an independent board and officially administered by Columbia University. The Pulitzer Committee issues an official citation explaining the reasons for the award. > The Criticism Pulitzer has been awarded to one person annually except in 1992 when it was not awarded—43 prizes in 44 years 1970–2013. Wesley Mo... The _Post_ has had eight winners (nine if you count Jonathan Yardley, who moved there from _The Washington Star_ when it folded a year after he won the award), while the _Times_ has had only seven. If you count the winners since 1987, the _Times_ has had only two, while the _Post_ has had six. In fact, _The Los Angeles Times_ and _The Boston Globe_ have done better than the _Times_ since 1987 in criticism, since they have had three winners each in criticism in that time period. ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/42 "2009-03-19T09:57:41Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > BBC has it’s own rather significant bias issues. > [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece) From your own link (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Although **its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial** , the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries. I’m okay with a bias in how much airtime is given to issues if the content is impartial, especially since I mostly interact with the Beeb through the Internet, which is a choose-your-own-airtime medium. I agree with **Sitnam** ’s concerns about The Economist. Its editorial value is that wealth and wealth creation are inherently good things, not just tools to make good things happen. > [@spifflog](#): > > BTW. Tracy, loved your early work. Thanks! I think “Bringing Up Baby” is one of my favorite pre-WWII comedies. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/43 "2009-03-19T10:50:19Z")
Psst… you mean _Philadelphia Story_ ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/44 "2009-03-19T10:53:24Z")
I was doing a Katharine Hepburn riff, but it didn’t work very well. ☹ Also, I’m not sure if I would call Philly Story pre-WWII, but that’s a debate for another thread! ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/45 "2009-03-19T11:06:25Z")
Ah. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/46 "2009-03-19T11:17:35Z")
Everyone thinks their news source is unbiased or at the very least the least biased. The reality is that all news sources have bias. The best you can do is to take in as much as you can from as many points of view as you can. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/47 "2009-03-19T13:57:04Z")
> [@A\_Dodgy\_Dude](#): > > Fox has conservative and liberals on every show presenting both sides of every issue. > > I know that’s not the same thing as unbiased, but it’s as close as you’re gonna get anywhere today. Sorry, no. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/48 "2009-03-19T14:10:17Z")
> [@A\_Dodgy\_Dude](#): > > Fox has conservative and liberals on every show presenting both sides of every issue. You mean Fox has conservatives and “liberals” on every show. ---
**Author:** ![Raza](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raza/32/213_2.png) [@Raza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raza)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/49 "2009-03-19T14:47:01Z")
I have often wanted to ask the same question as the OP. I’m pretty much stuck browsing the Google and Yahoo news feeds. I’ve looked at **Reuters** and **Christian Science Monitor** and would appreciate your impressions of either of those (and no, I’m not a Scientist). I listen to bits of NPR daily (thankfully, I have a shortish commute). One thing I’ve noticed that could lead one to conclude they have a bias (towards any side) is that, while I think they do a good job of presenting all sides, they don’t always do so concurrently. I remember one segment presented a facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from side A, but the equally-long side B segment wasn’t presented until the following day (“yesterday we heard from Joe Rubiniwitz on the situation in blank; today we’ll hear from Ahmad Abdurrahim…”). If one were to just tune in to one of the interviews, they might assume NPR was pro/anti-whatever. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/50 "2009-03-19T14:59:15Z")
Nowhere, as I know all news is biased. I take in news from lots of sources and try to figure out what really happened. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847/51 "2009-03-19T15:59:03Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > My minor gripe: Is David Brooks the only non-frothing conservative out there? Didn’t think so. So why do both outlets use him for Friday commentary? The only other non-frothing conservative I can think of is David Frum. Are there others? This is a serious question. I would like to get the conservative view point, but I want it from someone who isn’t a blatant hack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-go-for-comprehensive-unbiased-news/489847.md?page=2)