The Economist has a free-market bias that they openly admit, but they tend to be good at distinguishing opinion from facts and take several steps (such as making the journalists anonymous) to help minimize influence. Also, it was good enough for Karl Marx - hardly a free-market champion.
The Hill is surprisingly good for DC politics news.
The English version of Al Jazeera is Saudi-funded but usually covers stories fairly. (The arabic version is outright propaganda and should be avoided).
Vice News is pretty good. They have a new HBO show coming out.
The Intercept tends to get its facts right and sources them well. It's pro-Snowden and pro-Wikileaks but I haven't noticed any egregious slanting of the truth, or outright lies so far.
Even CNN (really!) has a couple of "real" journalists left working for them. The only one that seems to have enough clout to avoid editorial meddling is Fareed Zakaria (GPS).
John Oliver is biased, especially in terms of pro-Clinton content but his facts are usually correct. He's also funny.
Le Monde Diplomatique (French newspaper) used to be very good but I haven't read it in some time.
The BBC is generally accurate (and I give them props for funding an undercover investigation of their own director!) but I'd generally ignore it for hot-button UK-based political issues. It's one of the few sources that are legally-bound to be impartial however so they generally don't get TOO egregious.
The WSJ is still excellent for business news. Similarly the Financial Times in the UK. I'd largely ignore anything else they print however.
For the rest: I suggest just reading a story and then going straight to the source material to see how trustworthy it is. Any story that simply references another news outlet can be ignored - keep digging until you get to the actual sources then ask yourself if they are credible.
You can't call CNN unbiased just because one reported has so far been good.
In every subject that John Oliver reported on that I knew a bit about, I had to stop due to the amount of fallacies. For example, in one of the most recent ones, he jokes about how police worry about people armed with knives. He then shows a clip of a police officer explaining why knives are dangerous, but cuts him off in order to laugh at how stupid he is. Let me explain as a former soldier exactly why criminals with knives are dangerous. While in striking distance (an arms length) it takes someone with a knife in his hand a fraction of a second to cause damage. Whereas it can take a trained soldier (I assume police as well) to draw, cock, aim, and fire a gun up to 2 seconds. 2 seconds might sound like not a lot but there was a study done that showed that if a knife man was armed and within 21 feet, he will be able to attack a gun man with the gun in the harness.
As somebody who follows about 75% of those sources, those are definitely not the places to get unbiased news. Editorials, perspectives and opinion-based articles maybe, but half those sources don't even make being unbiased a goal.
Sadly, I don't believe that it exists. Everyone seems to have an agenda of some sort, and the news is colored by their bias.
I scan headlines from multiple sources, consciously avoid clickbait and paywall sites (Forbes, I'm thinking of you), and try to use my head to think through issues that I care about. I read an article if it interests me, but I actually don't fully trust the source.
Journalists can also be awful and distort basic facts (sometimes it's even not deliberate, just lazy). Seeing something newsworthy in person and then reading the news reports is eye-opening.
(Disclaimer: Google engineer and former Google News TL from a while back)
Honestly, it's really difficult. It would be great if something like Google News worked (and it does generate a diverse set of biases), but it is just aggregating a relatively biased set of sources.
Slower cycles (weekly, monthly) are generally better, and honestly you could switch to entirely getting your news on a weekly basis and being just fine.
So I personally would stay away from 24h news coverage. Local papers generally don't have a diverse editorial staff, and national papers often have deeply entrenched editorial staff. You can read the wires directly, but coverage is spotty and so you'll end up with a biased viewpoint regardless. Blogs and social media all suffer from a lack of editorial process, and while there may be better information buried deep it's not worth the misinformation burden to find it.
For weekly cycles, I like The Economist. It does have a bias, but it is a fairly politically independent one.
There is no such thing as neutral and unbiased news. Journalists often claim such thing is possible, but it isn't making things worse by hiding their bias. You can try to find out in what direction the author/news outlet is usually biased to and try to subtract that, try to find multiple sources to get views from different angles, try to find reliable hard facts.
>try to find multiple sources to get views from different angles, try to find reliable hard facts
This is indeed the way to go. Publications will rarely outright lie to their readers, but rather conveniently not mention this or that. Reading something from 2-3 opposing publications will most likely give you the full story.
I agree with coreyp_1; there are no unbiased news sources. Also, people perceive bias based on their world view. For example, a Republican in the US will perceive "liberal bias" in any story that doesn't present Republican politicians in a positive light, regardless of its veracity.
Having said all of that, some news sources have less spin. I like Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/. I think they are more similar to a wire service than a "we cater to your worldview" brand.
As an American, I sadly find that the UK's Guardian have better coverage of what is happening in the US than most US "news" papers and websites. That being said, The Guardian have some of the most maddening identity-politik editorials. One of my "favorite" Guardian editorials was Syreeta McFadden's piece about how film stock is racist because doesn't pick up the details of black faces. (Maybe learn how to use a camera, Syreeta. These are these things called F-stops and shutter speeds). I also "enjoyed" abortion columnist Jessica Valenti's recent piece in which she mentioned that her friends carry tote bags bearing the slogan "Lord, give me confidence of a mediocre white man." ...but I digress...
The intercept is an interesting read. While it certainly has a very strong point of view, you can be sure that they're not working for "The Man".
> For example, a Republican in the US will perceive "liberal bias" in any story that doesn't present Republican politicians in a positive light, regardless of its veracity.
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration.
There are some Republicans who continue to criticize trump freely, after he won the nomination, even if some of these might still prefer him to Hillary Clinton.
Though some republicans would probably interpret almost any criticism as bias.
Did you mean most republicans or just at least some?
Maybe you meant things that criticize republican politicians as a group? To me, that seems likely to be more true.
You don't. You have to put in the work to understand the particular bias and reputation of each sure you read. And then you have to seek out additional sources that are biased in different ways so that you can see all sides of the debate. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).
Best thing to do is to read news from left and right media or in country relations, say US and Russia, from both sides. Usually the truth lies somewhere between.
Since you probably already know the various establishment newspapers such as The New York Times, WSJ and The Economist, I would suggest watching speeches by and interviews with Noam Chomsky. Is he neutral? No. Nobody is. But he has a completely different perspective. And in line with the other comments in this thread, I think you need to check out different perspectives to get closer to the truth.
Edit: also, check out The Guardian and The Intercept.
It's not news but there is always CSPAN/CPSAN2/CSPAN3 .
I consider Frontline to be neutral long-form analysis.
Other than that, use the basic news programs as aggregators and dig for yourself. Nobody's gonna do it for you. The problem is less bias than it is differences in opinion of what makes a story interesting. Trainwrecks are interesting, so everything is a trainwreck.
Good news it is pretty easy to train yourself to see bias and remove/ignore it. And once you do reading the news becomes a lot faster. As you can skip sections or entire articles below the headline that are clearly opinions masquerading as news.
Lastly, it won't be breaking news, but for many bigger events there is a wikipedia that can be a surprisingly accurate and unbiased account.
No such thing as news without bias — all content reflects the biases of its creators. Even if somehow there were no bias reflected in the article/video itself, there's always bias in which news is presented.
I think the best thing to do is to get news from multiple sources (at least 3). The truth is somewhere in between.
There's no such thing as unbiased news, especially international news. Not even Reuters or AP manage to be un-biased. Biases flow in like thin air from cracks without the journalist even noticing, because of framing[1].
You have to understand that for a news story to be unbiased you have to report just the fact, e.g. "Bombing in Alepo, 13 dead". However, that's not even considered reporting for most people, since they lack the context: Where is Alepo, why is important, who bombed them? The moment you put context on a reality that is so complex, you're starting to putting upfront your biases. Even referencing a US-based institution vs a Chinese or Russian based institution is a form of rather strong bias.
So since everyone is biased what we can do to reach a balanced compromised is the following:
* Make sure we understand where the author comes from[2].
* Accept the fact that we don't know, hence remain open to other possibilities/interpretation
* Try (and you have to try hard...) to look for the truth. Most of us, read the publications that are ideologically aligned with our beliefs. That doesn't help much, as we already know the strong arguments for our case.
Some high quality publications in my view are:
* The New York Times
* The Atlantic
* The New Yorker
[1] In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality, URL: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Framing_(social_sciences)
[2] I still remember the WSJ presenting the saviour of miners in South American as a win of capitalism while it was, by all means, the exact opposite. It was companies-do-what-they-do who put them in that situation, plus all the tech that powered the machines that saved them, were founded by public research.
For analysis and perspective on the media, there's the excellent NPR radio show -- wait for it... -- "On the Media".
On a good week, I find myself thinking it's one of the more important shows around, right now.
The podcast is quite convenient to grab. Try a couple of weeks' worth, as individual shows can vary a bit as to content and presentation, depending upon the week and what they are covering.
I don't expect to get unbiased news. But if I want a realistic and accurate perspective from an individual or group then I would look at blogs, a person's youtube channel, or some less centralized group. Then combine a bunch of them and you may get a more real picture. Or documentaries sometimes are truthful.
But I think you need lots of primary sources close to the action, like people, expect them all to be biased towards their own situation, synthesize those reports together.
War propaganda is a big part of regular news everywhere including the US.
Google News is the best for overall quick, algorithmic look at world events.
I like Washington Post, The Economist, and Deadspin.
If you're worried about bias, my assumption is you want to see a particular bias. Thinking critically about the information you receive is vastly more important than getting unbiased information.
If you always get time from a single clock, you won't recognize when that clock drifts. If two clocks don't agree, then you know one of them is wrong. Are you only looking at one clock?
Also, no one watches news anymore. That's barbaric.
I'm just a grad student, but I'm shocked/appalled at the sheer number of undergrads whose only source of "news" is news satire (e.g., The Daily Show) or vlogs (e.g., insert <politically-vocal-youtuber-who-agrees-with-their-opinions> here).
I also doubt an unbiased news source exist, all of them have some agenda. But to me, I find that one of the news sources with strongest bias towards common sense is The Economist.
Nothing is neutral or unbiased, you need to form your own point of view (aka develop a perspective from your own history, society, ambitions and moral attitude) about life and its events in order to relate with people and their opinions, also making a comparison.
I have found Christian Science Monitor to be pretty unbiased. They also report the good news that happens, which is something I think is important. I dont like the scare tactics used by some sources.
[+] [-] alasdair_|9 years ago|reply
The Hill is surprisingly good for DC politics news.
The English version of Al Jazeera is Saudi-funded but usually covers stories fairly. (The arabic version is outright propaganda and should be avoided).
Vice News is pretty good. They have a new HBO show coming out.
The Intercept tends to get its facts right and sources them well. It's pro-Snowden and pro-Wikileaks but I haven't noticed any egregious slanting of the truth, or outright lies so far.
Even CNN (really!) has a couple of "real" journalists left working for them. The only one that seems to have enough clout to avoid editorial meddling is Fareed Zakaria (GPS).
John Oliver is biased, especially in terms of pro-Clinton content but his facts are usually correct. He's also funny.
Le Monde Diplomatique (French newspaper) used to be very good but I haven't read it in some time.
The BBC is generally accurate (and I give them props for funding an undercover investigation of their own director!) but I'd generally ignore it for hot-button UK-based political issues. It's one of the few sources that are legally-bound to be impartial however so they generally don't get TOO egregious.
The WSJ is still excellent for business news. Similarly the Financial Times in the UK. I'd largely ignore anything else they print however.
For the rest: I suggest just reading a story and then going straight to the source material to see how trustworthy it is. Any story that simply references another news outlet can be ignored - keep digging until you get to the actual sources then ask yourself if they are credible.
[+] [-] sycril|9 years ago|reply
Al Jazeera is actually funded by Qatar, and you can read about the issues that they have here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c... . This includes the English version.
You can't call CNN unbiased just because one reported has so far been good.
In every subject that John Oliver reported on that I knew a bit about, I had to stop due to the amount of fallacies. For example, in one of the most recent ones, he jokes about how police worry about people armed with knives. He then shows a clip of a police officer explaining why knives are dangerous, but cuts him off in order to laugh at how stupid he is. Let me explain as a former soldier exactly why criminals with knives are dangerous. While in striking distance (an arms length) it takes someone with a knife in his hand a fraction of a second to cause damage. Whereas it can take a trained soldier (I assume police as well) to draw, cock, aim, and fire a gun up to 2 seconds. 2 seconds might sound like not a lot but there was a study done that showed that if a knife man was armed and within 21 feet, he will be able to attack a gun man with the gun in the harness.
The BBC has its issues as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
In the end, if you want a balanced view of the world. I would recommend listening to sources that state their bias from both sides.
[+] [-] tinalumfoil|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] olegious|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coreyp_1|9 years ago|reply
I scan headlines from multiple sources, consciously avoid clickbait and paywall sites (Forbes, I'm thinking of you), and try to use my head to think through issues that I care about. I read an article if it interests me, but I actually don't fully trust the source.
[+] [-] GFischer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_va|9 years ago|reply
Honestly, it's really difficult. It would be great if something like Google News worked (and it does generate a diverse set of biases), but it is just aggregating a relatively biased set of sources.
Slower cycles (weekly, monthly) are generally better, and honestly you could switch to entirely getting your news on a weekly basis and being just fine.
So I personally would stay away from 24h news coverage. Local papers generally don't have a diverse editorial staff, and national papers often have deeply entrenched editorial staff. You can read the wires directly, but coverage is spotty and so you'll end up with a biased viewpoint regardless. Blogs and social media all suffer from a lack of editorial process, and while there may be better information buried deep it's not worth the misinformation burden to find it.
For weekly cycles, I like The Economist. It does have a bias, but it is a fairly politically independent one.
[+] [-] catdog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sattoshi|9 years ago|reply
This is indeed the way to go. Publications will rarely outright lie to their readers, but rather conveniently not mention this or that. Reading something from 2-3 opposing publications will most likely give you the full story.
[+] [-] alansmitheebk|9 years ago|reply
Having said all of that, some news sources have less spin. I like Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/. I think they are more similar to a wire service than a "we cater to your worldview" brand.
As an American, I sadly find that the UK's Guardian have better coverage of what is happening in the US than most US "news" papers and websites. That being said, The Guardian have some of the most maddening identity-politik editorials. One of my "favorite" Guardian editorials was Syreeta McFadden's piece about how film stock is racist because doesn't pick up the details of black faces. (Maybe learn how to use a camera, Syreeta. These are these things called F-stops and shutter speeds). I also "enjoyed" abortion columnist Jessica Valenti's recent piece in which she mentioned that her friends carry tote bags bearing the slogan "Lord, give me confidence of a mediocre white man." ...but I digress...
The intercept is an interesting read. While it certainly has a very strong point of view, you can be sure that they're not working for "The Man".
BTW, someone where mentioned the Washington Post. Have a look at this before you tout WP as unbiased: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/oil-lobby-paid-washingto...
[+] [-] drdeca|9 years ago|reply
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration.
There are some Republicans who continue to criticize trump freely, after he won the nomination, even if some of these might still prefer him to Hillary Clinton.
Though some republicans would probably interpret almost any criticism as bias.
Did you mean most republicans or just at least some?
Maybe you meant things that criticize republican politicians as a group? To me, that seems likely to be more true.
[+] [-] spoonie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 551199|9 years ago|reply
Best thing to do is to read news from left and right media or in country relations, say US and Russia, from both sides. Usually the truth lies somewhere between.
[+] [-] alasdair_|9 years ago|reply
There are more than two viewpoints.
[+] [-] greatest-ape|9 years ago|reply
Edit: also, check out The Guardian and The Intercept.
[+] [-] ArkyBeagle|9 years ago|reply
I consider Frontline to be neutral long-form analysis.
Other than that, use the basic news programs as aggregators and dig for yourself. Nobody's gonna do it for you. The problem is less bias than it is differences in opinion of what makes a story interesting. Trainwrecks are interesting, so everything is a trainwreck.
[+] [-] qwrusz|9 years ago|reply
Bad news is there is no unbiased news.
Good news it is pretty easy to train yourself to see bias and remove/ignore it. And once you do reading the news becomes a lot faster. As you can skip sections or entire articles below the headline that are clearly opinions masquerading as news.
Lastly, it won't be breaking news, but for many bigger events there is a wikipedia that can be a surprisingly accurate and unbiased account.
[+] [-] jkoschei|9 years ago|reply
I think the best thing to do is to get news from multiple sources (at least 3). The truth is somewhere in between.
[+] [-] atmosx|9 years ago|reply
You have to understand that for a news story to be unbiased you have to report just the fact, e.g. "Bombing in Alepo, 13 dead". However, that's not even considered reporting for most people, since they lack the context: Where is Alepo, why is important, who bombed them? The moment you put context on a reality that is so complex, you're starting to putting upfront your biases. Even referencing a US-based institution vs a Chinese or Russian based institution is a form of rather strong bias.
So since everyone is biased what we can do to reach a balanced compromised is the following:
* Make sure we understand where the author comes from[2].
* Accept the fact that we don't know, hence remain open to other possibilities/interpretation
* Try (and you have to try hard...) to look for the truth. Most of us, read the publications that are ideologically aligned with our beliefs. That doesn't help much, as we already know the strong arguments for our case.
Some high quality publications in my view are:
* The New York Times * The Atlantic * The New Yorker
[1] In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality, URL: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Framing_(social_sciences)
[2] I still remember the WSJ presenting the saviour of miners in South American as a win of capitalism while it was, by all means, the exact opposite. It was companies-do-what-they-do who put them in that situation, plus all the tech that powered the machines that saved them, were founded by public research.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|9 years ago|reply
On a good week, I find myself thinking it's one of the more important shows around, right now.
The podcast is quite convenient to grab. Try a couple of weeks' worth, as individual shows can vary a bit as to content and presentation, depending upon the week and what they are covering.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/otm
http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia
[+] [-] ilaksh|9 years ago|reply
But I think you need lots of primary sources close to the action, like people, expect them all to be biased towards their own situation, synthesize those reports together.
War propaganda is a big part of regular news everywhere including the US.
[+] [-] spcelzrd|9 years ago|reply
Google News is the best for overall quick, algorithmic look at world events.
I like Washington Post, The Economist, and Deadspin.
If you're worried about bias, my assumption is you want to see a particular bias. Thinking critically about the information you receive is vastly more important than getting unbiased information.
If you always get time from a single clock, you won't recognize when that clock drifts. If two clocks don't agree, then you know one of them is wrong. Are you only looking at one clock?
Also, no one watches news anymore. That's barbaric.
[+] [-] coreyp_1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beefield|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ap22213|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrNuke|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stray|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahartman00|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] source99|9 years ago|reply