The news programmes are produced by the main BBC news team, but are specifically aimed at American or global audiences. The other programming is a mix of mainstream BBC output alongside programmes from British commercial channels.
I love The Economist. I read the New York Times as well.
I’m picky regarding my news in that I cannot stand television or radio news, nor do I really like reading it online. I need actual pages with printed material.
NPR.
I do as well, however, they do have a ‘greatest possible wealth is the greatest possible good’ mentality that angers me. Things like renewable energy/vaccines/science advances are treated like profit opportunities and not goals in themselves.
I really like their international news because it’s much more than just a list of things happening, they put it all together and explain what it all really means. Their predictions are often dead on.
I suppose it can be argued that they do carry a bias, but it could also be argued that it often impossible not to carry a bias on some stories. I can’t tell you how grateful I am for The Rachel Maddow Show and Bill Moyer’s Journal; two of the best interviewers around. Bias or no, at least you can not say they aren’t fair and respectful to whom every they interview, which, unfortunately, has really become a rare thing.
I don’t agree. If anything, public radio’s weakness is the same that any mainstream media organization is subject to – bias in favor of institutional government and business figures and a hesitation to question conventional wisdom. Whatever it is, it’s not a “liberal” bias. But their coverage is more comprehensive and more intelligent than anything on television, especially if you listen to the wide variety of programs distributed by N.P.R. and P.R.I.
I don’t see it quite like that. I think it’s more that they believe the market can result in the most innovation and the best product. That is, profit opportunities themselves often create the best results/products. In many ways, they’re right.
I agree completely - they are unapologetic capitalists and free marketeers. I don’t always agree with their businessy stories, but they’re top notch as bringers of the news.
I like a variety of sources: NY Times, the Economist, NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, um…the Daily Show. And the Pit. Browsing Google News is an excellent way to see a lot of articles on the same thing, too, for when I’m feeling a bit too lefty.
I don’t disagree that the market is a force for good, I disagree that the market is the ultimate good, a distinction I don’t believe they draw.
I’m not sure they need to. It is, for the most part, the best alternative and that’s enough. I’m not sure I want my news sources to be founts for utopian possibilities. That’s what philosophy is for.
If a child was in a burning building the Economist would make the case that it is in the best interests of the person walking on the street to rescue him because there is a possibility of personal reward for him. It’s that perspective I find wrong.
I don’t think they go quite that far. They simply point out that an incentive, of any sort, is what often prompts human behaviour be it monetary or even philantrophic.
Actually NPR gives equal time to both sides. That feels like bias because we are not used to it anymore. I like the Lehrer report too. Same thing, an equally qualified lib and Right winger are aired. Both sides are given and they allow time to fully explain.
I enjoy PBS’s NewsHour. I liked to watch BBC news too, just for perspective.
I don’t think anyone’s truly unbiased, but different networks have slightly different focuses.
I listen to NPR and read the Wall Street Journal (in print). I used to really like the Globe and Mail when I was going to college in Montreal.
I know this makes me sound like a yahoo but I really intensely dislike the “carefully cultivated ennuie” writing style at the New York Times. Also the other day they had a blogger who was ostensibly writing a reaction piece to an Atlantic Monthly article who basically wrote something like six sentences of original prose and then put in gigantic chunks of the article for the rest of it.
They shouldn’t be doing that job, that’s commentators jobs, which Stewart is.
IMO, I’ve found NPR to be lacking in bias when I listen to it. They seem to present both sides of an argument. Most I’ve come up with (when trying) is that they will ask leading questions of their guests or commentators. Most liberal outlets wouldn’t have had a guy on this morning defending the AIG bonuses as a good thing unless they were going to castrate him.
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.
Gonna have to give The Week a try.
A while ago I got too busy to read the Economist on a regular basis. When work eased up I tried to catch up by reading the 6-month backlog of issues that were sitting in a pile by my sofa. It was very entertaining to me to read their predictions, almost all of which were wrong.
That aside, it’s a great magazine. Very well written.
The Internet.
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.
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?