Recommend Unbiased News source

Maybe that's and oxymoron and it would be easier to find two heavily biased news sources to counterpoint each other. I'm not talking about FOX's Hannity and Colmes type of counterpoint. LOL They would need to be fully independent of each other. But maybe that's a utopian dream since it would probably look like our last election full, of mud slinging and lies.

So the topic remains, can you recommend any unbiased news sources online?

As much as I hate "Fox" I find that Fox News Watch is pretty fairly balanced. Mainly because of its point counter point format.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143573,00.html

.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I find most of the US based news sources are all pretty much the same. read one and you've pretty know what's on the others. print, radio, TV broadcast, cable etc most markets are controlled by the same party.

The only exception seems to be internet..

been visiting sites in other countries like Austrialia, New Zealand, British and Canadian news.

a very small group owns all of the major news channels in the USA. It's hard to believe that this has been allow to occur and this is good for the American people.

Nope.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif I'm not unbiased enough to recognize a truly unbiased news source.

Maybe the Wall Street Journal, because they focus solely on money, and provide a viewpoint on things as seen strictly through the prism of money, which is kind of unbiased since all sides care about it...

Re: cy's internet recommend.....
It's even possible to read the same newspapers that the average Iraqi reads every day. (In English versions)

My favorite newspaper is the International Herald Tribune.

I like http://news.google.com a lot. Make sure you're running with a pop-up blocker, since it uses many different sources. http://news.yahoo.com is blander and has no pop-ups. I think Google wins, since you're getting a random mish-mash of sources. Perfect impartiality is impossible.

cy: I concur. Why does Microsoft have to deal with anti-monopoly laws while the news industry is exempt. I guess they could be the ones blowing the whistle on MS but not on themselves. Reminds me of the DVD Out-Foxed! Where 'Journalist' or actormen, I mean anchormen are told what to report and 'color comentate'. Some of the news networks come across as immature children on a reality TV episode. Since the American TV public is hooked on reality TV it makes sense that some of these 'entertainment' networks get passed off as hard core legitimate news. We need a better system for news that can police itself.

For the best of the best: http://www.obscurestore.com/ /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

IHT website quote - "The International Herald Tribune (IHT) buys first-time publication rights from contributors. These rights include the worldwide right to publish the work in the print and electronic editions of the IHT and The New York Times (collectively, the "Newspaper"), as well as certain related rights."

Looks like this might fall into the wire services, like AP and Reuters, for its coverage?

Here is a hopeful quote from CSM "newspaper that 'will place principle before dividends, and that will be fair, frank and honest with the people on all subjects and under whatever pressure' — a truly independent voice not controlled by 'commercial and political monopolists.'"

They are all basically the same since they just rehash AP articles.

OK - I'm in the industry in a support function - 80% of the news is rehashed wire service stuff

ALL sources of data are biased - all kinds of data. The question is, do they admit their bias or not. The GOOD thing about the European news sources is that they admit their bias - there is usually the Liberal and Conservitive Newspapers etc

www.foxnews.com
www.washtimes.com
www.worldnetdaily.com

I'm kind of fond of Drudgereport. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Larry

I don't watch, read or listen to any of it...
believe me ...the less I know .....the better for them....and my blood pressure!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

There's no such thing as an unbiased news source. Yes, that includes the internet, news from foreign countries and even stuff straight off the wire. I'm actually surprised people here think the foreign press is less bias!?! Some think they're getting the straight facts from places like Iraqi newspapers or British broadcast???

You already got the closest solution you're going to get. That is to hear both sides and figure it out for yourself.

BTW, I'm curious about something KC2IXE said. Does the BBC actually admit their liberal bias? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif Serious question, not baiting. In general, I think these topics suck and should really be in the underground.

Sinjz, you stole my thunder by three minutes -- slow thinking and typing on my part

The subject sounds a little like flamebait to me.

Everyone has their own axe to grind. (Maybe it would be more politic to say that everyone has their own point of view. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) I read news from quite a few sources and I would never think of telling anyone that one or more of them was unbiased. Some of the sources I read have been mentioned here by others. I may say that I like one source or another, but claim that they're unbiased? Nope.

Bias is only human. The answer is not to look for bias free reporting -- just get your news from different sources.

Many make the mistake in thinking that Bias is something that only happens on a conscious level. Not so. Bias requires no intent. We are all the products of our upbringing, our education, our culture and our own personal experience. No one can shed all that baggage and be truly "bias free". The people in news organizations are no different from anyone else in this regard.

If you believe that you have found this shimmering Eldorado of bias free news you're either being fooled by them or by yourself. Just because you agree with most of what they say does not mean that they are unbiased -- it probably just means that you share some of the same bias that they do.

The bottom line is that it is totally unrealistic to expect get the truth from any one source. Obligitory YMMV.

CromagNet, Your original post had some points that summed it up well, IMO.

You probably shouldn't just take my word on this. I'm biased. No really...

[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
Sinjz, you stole my thunder by three minutes -- slow thinking and typing on my part

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hahaha.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

I agree with you guys about there being a bias on any one source. It's what make the free world a great place. That there can be any bias and many sources for them. My original post was mostly to try to tap the CPF collective for some new sources to add to the ones I already check. I don't think this belongs in the underground if we stick to that or try to keep comment neutral and unbiased LOL /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I deal in research for my job and some of my favorite "news" sources are:

http://news.google.com
http://www.worldnews.com

worldnews gives a great overview of what is happening around the world.

doug