Where should one get unbiased information?

I would like to know where we can find completely unbiased information about current events. Is it possible?

I mean real journalists reporting facts without…well you know what I mean.

I am afraid that I get too much of my information from left-wing sources, not crazy left, but leaning left. And I disdain people who get their information from right-leaning sources, so I don’t think I’m being fair.

So I wonder, what are the really good sources that you can depend on? I don’t think you can depend on network news anymore because they have become too tabloid-like.

I’m serious. Don’t tell me Huffington Post or Glenn Beck. I want real answers.

I usually watch BBC or any other foreign news I can find. I figure they don’t have a vested interest in America’s politics one way or the other.

Despite the smear campaign by the right, the news desks at The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal as well as the wire services (the Associated Press, Reuters, and UPI) all aspire to–and largely achieve–a reasonable degree of objectivity in their reporting.

Every source has its biases, though some more than others. If it’s important enough, try to get it from three or four different sources.

That’s right. The answer to Lillith Fair’s OP is; nowhere. You cannot find unbiased information/news anywhere. Each article is written by a person, that cannot avoid writing from the viewpoint (personal bias) of their own education, politics and experiences. Then the article gets reviewed by an editor that inflicts their own personality upon it and that of the business.

I read a lot of news from multiple sources and on some days I can’t even tell if they are talking about the same issue.

Try this, Lillith, for a week read a story on CNN, then go read about the same issue on Fox, BBC, Bloomberg, ABC, DailyKos, Drudge, Politico, NY Times, etc. as much as you have time for, but read your usual sources and something completely different. Alternate right and left and back again.

A couple days of this and you will begin to realize that no one is even attempting to get to the bottom of an issue but instead all are spinning it toward their own bias. And I don’t just mean the OP-Ed people, even the supposedly hard news sources have their minds made up about how an issue should be addressed.

You probably will gravitate back to the source that most closely aligns with your own take on the issue.

But the TRUTH, it ain’t out there.

*Disclaimer; the opinions posted above may or may not reflect the opinions of the poster

http://www.factcheck.org/

You can click on “about us” to see who’s on their staff.

All information is biased to some degree. The OP question is interesting because it harks to another question, but adds “I want it but I don’t want to actually have to DO anything to get it.”

If you want to be informed, first of all realize you have to get the info.

Second have an open mind.

Third ask yourself does the author present the other side.

A good site should present a side, present the possible objections to that point of view and then refute those objections

Most things today are a result of pleasent or interesting personalities.

Let me give you an example, have you ever seen the View? Now one thing that strikes me odd about that show is how often Elisabeth Hasselbeck is right. Or at least she has a valid point. The problem with the show is Hasselbeck does not have the mental capacity to back any of her points up. So she comes off just looking stupid.

For instance, if I said “The speed of light is a constant.” Now that’s correct and I’m right. But if someone said “Why is that?” And I replied “I dunno,” even though I was right I’d come off as looking stupid and people would ignore me.

Also beware of what I call “not to fussy with the truth.” For instance, if someone uses the term “rip off” it’s so open ended it’s a worthless thing to say, because it means different things to different people.

For example, if I said “Extended warranties are a rip off” Some would agree but others would say “Since no one is forcing you to buy there is no rip off.”

You see how it works.

Finally avoid sentiment. Too many news sites sell you on heart felt things that are meaningless in terms of news. For example, when an 18 year old kid is shot down in cold blood that is a horrible crime. I don’t need the news people to say “He was working for money to go to college.” That is pure drivel. It makes no difference if he was going to college or saving money to buy a new tattoo, the point is he’s the victim of a cold blooded crime.

I guess I want my side to be right and I’m disappointed every day. People make mistakes. Life is complicated.

Something I have always wanted to say to a right-wing nut that I know: Spend some time watching a news show that is as distant from the center as what you normally watch, but on the other side. It helps you realize that if you go that far from center, both sides are crazy.

I am going to try to do what was suggested and read from many sources to compare and see what makes sense to me. Maybe I’ll find out that my normal sources are okay. Maybe not.

This - the first thing I was told by my research supervisor is that every source is suspect and has its own bias. Therefore learn the joys of triangulating data.

Unfortunately, this just isn’t true. While those sources tend to have a reasonable degree of objectivity as between Democrat-Republican issues, but they are firmly in the pro-capitalist camp. Don’t expect unions to get a fair shake from them, for example.

I find the Christian Science Monitor to be surprisingly even-handed while reporting issues. (The commentaries not as neutral, but they are like anyone else’s op-ed pages).

I don’t know that it’s possible to get unbiased information. Even the current bill that’s floating through Congress, because it was produced by one side of the aisle is biased.

Personally, I think the best bet is to read as much as you can, ideally from non-nutjob sources, and make your own conclusions. Oh, and if you can, read a good summary of the bill, like the Kaiser Foundation summary or read the bill itself. It’s incredibly long, boring and technical, but at least that way you know what it actually says instead of having to rely on what other people say it says.

The CSM is by far the most objective US source for foreign news reporting. Don’t know what the domestic section is like because I never read it.

It was sponsored by one side of the aisle. It was authored by both - hence the end-of-life care/death panel stuff, which was put in by a Republican.

My mistake. I found the end-of-life counseling to be a pretty reasonable provision the way it was written in the bill. Too bad it was twisted the way it was.

The Washington Post occasionally goes too far in trying to be objective, if you ask me, giving more weight and gravitas to completely spurious conspiracy theorists than is due, and sometimes giving too much credit to the far-right spin on things.

I don’t have examples at hand, but they’ll say things like “President Obama, whom many believe was not born in the United States,” or “Vice President Cheney issued an invitation to his opponents across the aisle,” not mentioning that it was an invitation to go _ _ _ _ themselves.

So, semi-hijacking the thread, how about some recommendations for non-nutjob, reasonably close to center sources? I agree that no one source can be assumed unbiased. What sources do you all think are less zealous in their biases?

I read a lot of news during the day since it’s part of my job. I usually read about four to five newspapers, mostly national dailies, plus certain daily updates and weekly publications. So far, my favorite newspapers are the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. For policy updates, I rely a lot on the Robert Woods Foundation and the Kaiser Family Foundation, whose updates I also read every day, along with a weekly summary. I also like to read the Federal Register table of contents on a daily basis to see if there’s updated legislation that might help me research. I also like the BBC because it’s good to see the U.S. from a different perspective.

In addition to the above, for work I also read the Washington Post and our local newspaper (which is very poorly written) and we have a media service that provides us with clips from all kinds of publications. I prefer these less because I generally find it harder to track down sources with the Post, our local paper and, of course, our media service, which is really providing us with information on our company’s public image for PR.

Every source has its biases. No source can be trusted completely, including me and all the posters on this thread.

Instapundit is one of the best. He supports gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research and the War on Terror, and he fully supports the 2nd amendment.

Re the NY Times, a few years ago its then-ombudsman said it was a liberal newspaper. (And I believe it was that same ombudsman who said at the time letters/email from liberals were overall much viler than those from conservatives.)

How was their coverage of Obama vs. McCain, Bush, or Palin? How’s their coverage of Israel vs. Palestine? When Arafat died, one of their correspondents wept.

There’s http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/. Read it and judge for yourself.

Those are extraordinary statements. I’d like to see a few examples before I’d accept your own statement.

Their bias toward Palestine is the one reason I stay away from them.
To get my conservative view point I read the Economist and David Brooks. They often write about things I disagree with, but they do it in a very intelligent and coherent manner.

Occasionally, I’ll watch the News Hour on PBS, but I find TV news to be less comprehensive than written news.

Also, you might want to check out niche news sources about specific topics that you like. I like politics, so in addition to reading the New York Times (for local news) and the Economist, I’ll also read Politicoand Fivethirtyeight.