So who has the fairly neutral news?

flavio

flavio

Banned
The coverage of the war can obviously be spun many different ways. Some of my posts containing articles from sfgate (San Francisco Chronicle ) and the UK Guardian have been thrown into question.

Others post bits from the Washington Times and Newsmax which I believe are easily as biased.

Fox News has a pretty well known conservative tilt as well.

MSNBC seems to have a decidedly pro-war bent to their news.

The pro-war crowd often discounts NPR as a source of information.

So if we truly want some (for the most part) unbiased nuetral information, where should we look.

How does the BBC rank?

What about sources from countries that aren't directly involved in the war like Canada? What's a good Canadian news source?

Any other ideas?
 
I wish I could tell you one source, I tend to look at them all, and average the coverage to get to some kind of happy medium. MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Federal News Radio, Alot of others.
 
I listen to the BBC, Flavio..every day...pretty much all day if I'm on the road, which if I'm heading into San Fran these days, MEANS all day....

I read and listen to many sources, from far left to far right, but I wouldn't consider ANY of them to be incontrovertible. As I've said time and again...one extreme does not balance out the other for a conclusion of truth...

And further, it's not the source that's questioned, it's the usage.

There's a big difference between saying "You know, it seems to me that part of the problem here that may not have been addressed thoroughly enough was the potential for one side or the other in this action to intentionally or accidentally cut the water supply to non combatants in (name city here). How might this be rectified?" ...followed up by a source from anywhere that might or might not point out a theoretical crisis..

and...

(source pointing out theoretical crisis)

"So you see if it weren't for us blowing up their shit they'd all have water...."

MADrin
 
madrin said:
I read and listen to many sources, from far left to far right, but I wouldn't consider ANY of them to be incontrovertible. As I've said time and again...one extreme does not balance out the other for a conclusion of truth...
Click to expand...

Ah but the point is not to find incontrovertible sources or balanced extremes. It's to find some reasonably neutral sources here.

Any Canadians here want to tell me about their news sites?
 
approach it from a different angle then...it's not so important to tag a specific source as "mostly neutral" , because no one will ever agree to what that fine line of neutrality is. One report perceived tilted to either side and suddenly it's discounted by half the people....

But what IS important is the factoid.

a good example: You could use Al Jazeera which points out that a couple days back "the American bombing campaign targeted and hit a crowded marketplace killing 17 people and wounding...blah blah blah...."

or,

You could choose a right wing source which says , "Iraqi irregulars intentionally fired on their own people in order to make the coalition forces look...blah blah blah..."


....and in the end what we can bank on is that there's a crater in the middle of a Baghdad marketplace with 17 dead people laying around it.

No we DON'T know that coalition forces targeted and hit a marketplace...

and no we DON'T know that the Iraqis intentionally hit their own people...

doesn't matter what the source is....reasonably intelligent people know that in either case the only thing you can take away from the related tale is the general facts are that there's that crater and some dead people , as I pointed out...

so then you get back into usage of that news...., and the vast chasm between,

"This is going to prove a PR nightmare for whichever side is found to be the culprit....sucks that civilians died in any case...seems to me like it could be (name your culprit and why you might think thats the case)"

and...

"Way to go America....kill a bunch of people that you're supposedly 'liberating' "

MADrin
 
There is no neutral news. Read a variety, liberal, conservative, foreign & combine the common elements.

madrin said:
No we DON'T know that coalition forces targeted and hit a marketplace...

and no we DON'T know that the Iraqis intentionally hit their own people...
Click to expand...

the third, most proabale bent is, an Iraqi missile misfired or went awry. That's why, in the beginning, I asked not to post those kind of stories. Iraq says we did & the Pentagon says, "not us buddy".

Look for facts in the story & not hearsay, discount quotes as biased & "reports" as lies.
 
I see. Where reasonably intelligent people might say something like,,,

" I don't think that is the case at all. According to this source {source} we see an entirely different scenario."

where the uninformed would simply say...

[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

......

[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

...

[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

But I wa s fairly aware of all this already. I still think there might be some relatively neutral sources for news. None of course would be entirely nuetral, maybe detached is the best you can hope for.
 
flavio said:
[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]
Click to expand...

almost, try this & you've got it:

[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [but] [unintelligble insult] [insult] [fucking] [intelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

:D
 
Gonz said:
flavio said:
[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]
Click to expand...

almost, try this & you've got it:

[insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [but] [unintelligble insult] [insult] [fucking] [intelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

:D
Click to expand...

That does seem more accurate...thank you Gonz. ;)
 
Canoe is liberal, CBC is conservative. Compare stories on the British in Basrah.
 
Flavio said:
I see. Where reasonably intelligent people might say something like,,," I don't think that is the case at all. According to this source {source} we see an entirely different scenario.where the uninformed would simply say... [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense] [insult] [insult] [unintelligble nonsense]

......"
Click to expand...

see? you nearly got there....the uninformed person would typically say something, as the example pointed out, along the lines of...
"Way to go America....kill a bunch of people that you're supposedly 'liberating' "
Click to expand...

BUT..you got 95% of the way there...and that's a nice start!

MADrin
 
Precisely. So, if you can avoid that tiny percentage you missed no one will ever think that of you again...

and that's a win all around....

MADrin
 
Here's my primary source list.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
http://www.tnr.com
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://www.msnbc.com/news/default.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/
http://www.sftt.org/
http://www.upi.com/index.cfm
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.c-span.org/

Now i can tell you what i think is the most neutral but the fact is it's not going to mean shit to anyone but me. The word neutrality misses the mark in my opinion. I think a better word would be unbiased. This is something you can never trust to get from anyone. Personally i think the best way to get information is to read about the story you're interested in from multiple sources and become accustomed to the writers. Only then will you begin to see the bias. You also have to find what sources those journalists are using. The absolute truth can never be trusted to any one media outlet and it's never going to be easy to find. Here's the kind of bias i hate. Now i think that cnn has some incredibly talented journalists. Mostly the men & women out in the field. So Cristian Amanpour does this wonderful story on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Then some other ccn news anchor relays this story to the public. At the end of this otherwise well written article the editor has tacked on a line, "today marks the day three years ago when a Palestinian man was killed by Israeli soldiers". When the truth is that EVERY FUCKING DAY MARKS A DAY THAT BOTH PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELSIS WERE KILLED! Never mind that this had nothing to do with the story in the first place. This is just one example of why i'll never trust any single media outlet or source. The truth is simply not an easy thing to come by in this day and age.
 
Well HeXp£Øi±, that's an interesting list. I see you have a few extremists on the roster. Do you try and balance that reading to both sides?

I would actually be interested to see what you consider the least biased and what falls to one side or the other.

I'm also curious why with that exhaustive list why you omit such notables as BBC and NPR?
 
Actually if you dug back in my history a bit you'd find that probably at least 50% of all my sources have been the bbc. I knew that few people scream at bbc news so that's the route i went for awhile but it got old. I can tell you that the most unbiased source in my opinion is Cspan. You should listen to washington journal at 7:00am est. Democrats call in and scream that it's right wing and next thing republicans call in and scream that it's to damned liberal. I love it!! They bring in people from around the globe to interview and it's absolutely the most informative show on television. You'd have to watch it a few times and judge for yourself though. That's the only one i'll claim to be unbiased. tnr is another of my favorites but i don't think it can stand up to the scrutiny of cspan. Put simply, some of those sources are great at times and sometimes, like all of us, they sway with the wind.

edit: Actually bbc should have been in there as well i just forgot it as well as the Jpost.
 
I'd also like to add one more source that i think does an excellent job. That being Charlie Rose. Not a direct source but he tends to interview a lot of the big media. Very informative and unbias imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top