There is obviously no such thing as an unbiased news source. The best way to get a complete picture is to see the spin from as many different angles as possible. Usually there are some elements of truth in each source that can be pieced together from reading multiple sources into some kind of coherent whole.
Shouldn't the bias filtering be done by the reader?
I can tell the difference between a biased piece and a unbiased one, can't you?
pretty much. it is very instructive to check on social media and get first hand reports from people there. the gap between that what is reported in regular news sites is so large you have to be stupid to take any news source uncritically.
Someone has to write the news. That person has to be motivated to write the news. What motivates someone to do this? Money. Power.
The corporate newspaper is trying to keep it to a specific demographic so that they can sell advertisements to that demographic.
The noncorporate newspaper is based around a political agenda of some sort. They are searching for power over their readers and want to increase their power by bringing in more readers.
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted
Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc. Click here for more details.
al jazzera their regular news reporting is pretty objective as far as it goes. their arab spring coverage was pretty impressive. cbc is pretty good.
american's have been so poisoned by their toxic stew of media they find it unfathomable that some news agencies outside of the US try to live up to objective journalistic standards.
bbc is as close as you'll get, it's not government controlled and not owned by a media baron.
BBC is one of the worst IMHO, completely biased and one-sided towards the UN, EU, Climate Change, Vaccines, Wars (even using film studios that show actors in Libya)
maybe post a youtube video made by a brain damaged half-wit.
Even without me giving you proof, you only have to watch the channel for a short while to see who's agenda they are working for. Judge them by their fruits
Trying to scare people with Bin Laden videos...anti-Gaddafi propaganda (watch their interviews with him)
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that
al jazzera their regular news reporting is pretty objective as far as it goes. their arab spring coverage was pretty impressive. cbc is pretty good.
american's have been so poisoned by their toxic stew of media they find it unfathomable that some news agencies outside of the US try to live up to objective journalistic standards.
Sigh.
I just assumed al jazzera would be completely biased. I started watching their live feeds when some of the Middle Eastern countries fell, and much to my surprise... I discovered they were pretty good.
It actually is a big deal. Maybe you didn't know but only like 3 companies own all the news channels, radio channels, and newspapers.
The public is fed lies and propaganda through all of these venues.
You think Fox is different from CNN and MSNBC and CBS when there's really no difference at all.
Wake... the fuck.... up....
I...am...awake
And as I said...it's ALWAYS been that way in the U.S.
And I never said a word about "Fox is different from CNN and MSNBC and CBS"
You didn't understand what I was saying. I said they are ALL biased. And always have been. It's just easier for you to see it now because they don't even hide it on Cable News anymore.
They still try to pretend to be unbiased on the major networks. But of course they aren't. They just use more subtle (and better) ways of promoting their particular bias. Voice inflections, facial expressions, etc.
And as I said...it's ALWAYS been that way in the U.S.
And I never said a word about "Fox is different from CNN and MSNBC and CBS"
You didn't understand what I was saying. I said they are ALL biased. And always have been. It's just easier for you to see it now because they don't even hide it on Cable News anymore.
They still try to pretend to be unbiased on the major networks. But of course they aren't. They just use more subtle (and better) ways of promoting their particular bias. Voice inflections, facial expressions, etc.
The fact that they all push the 2-party paradigm, whether "right" of "left" shows that they are all biased in the same way. They are all keeping the public divided and distracted. You think they're different because some are republican and some are democrat but they're all pushing the same damn agenda.
You think they're different because some are republican and some are democrat but they're all pushing the same damn agenda.
I agree.
But the worse thing is...even though the network news organizations were pretty liberal biased when I was a kid in the 1960's and 1970's...at least they still did REAL journalism. They investigated stuff. And they did the job of the free press: they QUESTIONED the govt.
When I was a kid watching coverage of the Vietnam War, you would see Dan Rather at CBS and even Geraldo Rivera for ABC reporting from places they were NOT supposed to be. With bullets flying. And they would openly show our troops doing "good" AND when they did "bad". And they questioned the validity of the war every step of the way.
Fast forward to the last couple of decades: Not only do they NOT question the govt., but they don't investigate anything. They are handed press releases by the feds and read them on the news like it's all fact.
And the wars? The freakin' journalists were "Embedded" with the troops. Thus insuring that we would only see the "good" and there was never any questioning during the wars.
Remember when we went into Iraq? And the "journalists" were riding "triumphantly" into Baghdad practically bragging about it instead of reporting.
Comment