Any Popular, Non-Biased, and Reputable Sources of Politics?

[lisab]

A good deal of SciAm and NYRB is available free of charge on the Net, so caveat lector, too.

-dlj.

That made me chuckle .

 

[Dembadon]

Ignoring sources that contain bias is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo. I think it's much more beneficial to learn how to recognize bias, so you can chew the meat and spit the bones.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Everyone has a motive, besides mathematicians.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let me give you a recent example of bias. Compare the Thalys train coverage: in the American media, the fact that the attacker was brought down by two American servicemen received a lot of coverage. In Franch media, the fact that one of the victims was actor Jean-Hugues Anglade received a lot of coverage. This is bias - selecting what information will get the most ink based on your audience's interests. Different audience, different interests, different focus.

Is this bad? I don't think so - I think we can all agree that some filtering is necessary, and most of us will agree that different reasonable people will make different choices as to what is in and what is out. The solution is not to search for the single source that somehow has no bias, or worse, to search for the single source whose biases match my own, but to get news and commentary from many different sources with their many different perspectives.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Let me give you a recent example of bias. Compare the Thalys train coverage: in the American media, the fact that the attacker was brought down by two American servicemen received a lot of coverage. In Franch media, the fact that one of the victims was actor Jean-Hugues Anglade received a lot of coverage. This is bias - selecting what information will get the most ink based on your audience's interests. Different audience, different interests, different focus.

Is this bad? I don't think so - I think we can all agree that some filtering is necessary, and most of us will agree that different reasonable people will make different choices as to what is in and what is out. The solution is not to search for the single source that somehow has no bias, or worse, to search for the single source whose biases match my own, but to get news and commentary from many different sources with their many different perspectives.

yup, you summed it up. Look at the facts and use critical thinking skills.

 

[Ralph Dratman]

... What are the most popular, reputable, and unbiased sources that you guys know of (if any exist!)?

I find Reuters to be the least biased major news provider.

 

[bballwaterboy]

Let me give you a recent example of bias. Compare the Thalys train coverage: in the American media, the fact that the attacker was brought down by two American servicemen received a lot of coverage. In Franch media, the fact that one of the victims was actor Jean-Hugues Anglade received a lot of coverage. This is bias - selecting what information will get the most ink based on your audience's interests. Different audience, different interests, different focus.

Is this bad? I don't think so - I think we can all agree that some filtering is necessary, and most of us will agree that different reasonable people will make different choices as to what is in and what is out. The solution is not to search for the single source that somehow has no bias, or worse, to search for the single source whose biases match my own, but to get news and commentary from many different sources with their many different perspectives.

That's a good point. I think this is one solution: read them all (or many sources).

But it's also a time-consuming thing to do. I tend to only do that with huge stories or ones that I have a deep personal interest in, because for most other stories I just don't have the time.

Another solution, I think, is to still read/watch the biased source, but simply filter out the bias in your mind - which can be hard to do if it's subtle or if the bias is one of omission, rather than commission.

I suppose with Fox News, you at least know the bias is conservative and right-wing usually, so that helps you get a sense of what you may be missing or being persuaded of.

Biased news makes the audience have to work harder mentally (if they want to get at the truth). Not necessarily a bad thing per se - exercising those brain cells is healthy - but the downside is lost time.

I find Reuters to be the least biased major news provider.

I'll take a look at Reuters. I currently read the New York Times after the Wall Street Journal turned into paid subscription a few years back. NYT seems maybe slightly liberal from what I can tell.

 

[Hornbein]

Noam Chomsky

I think any medium that accepts advertising money must be biased.

 

[russ_watters]

But it's also a time-consuming thing to do. I tend to only do that with huge stories or ones that I have a deep personal interest in, because for most other stories I just don't have the time...

Yes, but as several people have pointed out, a very significant manifestation of bias is in story selection. That is why it is often important to check multiple sources, so you see what you are missing. If you want to be well informed, there's just no shortcut around that work.

Noam Chomsky

It scares me to think that you may be serious.

I think any medium that accepts advertising money must be biased.

Fixed for you.

 

[Derek Francis]

It's pretty much established that Fox News is conservative biased. But CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Huffington Post are liberal biased. And it's also sad that there are a large number of liberals who think The Daily Show is a neutral news source.

Ultimately, I think liberal new stations are better at being subtle with their bias and disguising themselves as objective news outlets, whereas conservative ones like Hannity, Rush, and Glenn Beck are unabashed about their bias.

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10

BBC, The Economist, Google News Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian are the only news sources trusted by conservatives, moderates and liberals.

 

[Derek Francis]

CNN is not a balanced a news source. I'm checking the headlines right now.

We have:
"The slow motion implosion of the Republican Party"
"Ted Cruz is the real radical in this race"
"Trump's history of controversy with women"

Meanwhile there are no unflattering articles about Democrat politicians.

This isnt' that much different than the "new Clinton email discovery" article from Fox News right now.

 

[Derek Francis]

I agree with looking for numerous sources, but at the same time we want to avoid news media that revels in demagoguery. I want actual news and substance on issues. Not dirty laundry.

 

[WWGD]

I agree with looking for numerous sources, but at the same time we want to avoid news media that revels in demagoguery. I want actual news and substance on issues. Not dirty laundry.

Too late; you may have to go back in time to the point where news was not intended to be a money-making division.

 

[Derek Francis]

Would you say BBC, Guardian, Economist, WSJ and Rueters are fairly balanced?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I subscribe to http://www.stratfor.com

I haven't found anything better.

 

[jtbell]

CNN is not a balanced a news source. I'm checking the headlines right now.

We have:
"The slow motion implosion of the Republican Party"
"Ted Cruz is the real radical in this race"
"Trump's history of controversy with women"

The first two are explicitly listed in the "Opinion" section of the home page.

 

[Derek Francis]

While this is true, CNN's opinions are anti-Republican a majority of the time from what I've found.

Granted, I, in today's crazy political climate in the U.S., would be considered a liberal. But overall, I try to be as balanced and non-partisan as I can.

 

[jim hardy]

I agree with looking for numerous sources, but at the same time we want to avoid news media that revels in demagoguery. I want actual news and substance on issues. Not dirty laundry.

I find PBS's Frontline usually fair.
PBS straightened up their act a lot after Juan Williams went to work for Fox...

Old Cowboy saying: "Always drink upstream of the herd . "
That involves getting down in the mud. so to speak, to look for information that if not first-hand is at least close to the source..
Which means you have to be circumspect. Sensationalism abounds. The dog gets wagged, if you remember that movie.

One has to read a lot of articles with an eye toward how are they slanted and see what makes sense to him.
I search on names and keywords in mainstream news to see what folks smarter than i are writing.
I don't rule out so called "lowbrow" sources. Soldier of Fortune scooped NYT by a year on Saddam's gassing Kurds.

Edit by moderator; unapproved source deleted

Stockman had a less than stellar career , but did spend enough time in high circles to have some cred... Similar articles appear in "The Nation" , a self described progressive outfit.
compare his take to this Chicago think-tank

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/UkraineReport_February2015_FINAL.pdf
We face a critical juncture in Ukraine. There is no real ceasefire; indeed, there was a significant increase in fighting along the line of contact in eastern Ukraine in mid-January, with Russian/separatist forces launching attacks on the Donetsk airport and other areas. Instead of a political settlement, Moscow currently seeks to create a frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine as a means to pressure and destabilize the Ukrainian government.
Russians continue to be present in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in substantial numbers and have introduced significant amounts of heavy weapons. This could be preparation for another major Russian/separatist offensive.
Russian success would fatally undermine Ukraine’s stability and embolden the Kremlin to further challenge the security order in Europe. It might tempt President Putin to use his doctrine of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in seeking territorial changes elsewhere in the neighborhood, including in the Baltic States, provoking a direct challenge to NATO. Maintaining Western sanctions are critical but not by themselves sufficient. The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive. That requires providing direct military assistance—in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms—so that Ukraine is better able to defend itself. The U.S. government should provide
Ukraine $1 billion in military assistance as soon as ...

Have we been meddling inappropriately ? Who is the aggressor? Hard to tell from rural Arkansas. I'd have to ask somebody who lives there. That's why I relish PF posts from that part of the world.

Then you can look at the news and do searches on who's who.. Think Tanks are a good source of articles on upcoming current events, here's Kissinger-Brzeszinski's CSIS(they're both listed as directors)..

http://csis.org/ukraine/index.htm
March 22, 2016
Jaresko Declares Interest in Prime Minister Position
Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalia Yaresko today formalized her interest in becoming Ukraine’s next prime minister, after weeks of speculation naming her as a potential replacement for the embattled Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Ukraine has faced a political crisis in recent weeks after the departure of a number of parties from Yatsenyuk’s coalition in the Rada and the failure of inter-party talks to reach a mutually-agreeable resolution. Yaresko stated on Facebook that “only a technocratic government can deal with the problems in this of kind of [sic] political situation,” later stating that it is important that that government...

Okay, so who is this Ms Yaresko ? Where did she come from ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Jaresko
Jaresko held several economics-related positions at the US Department of State in Washington, D.C., and eventually coordinated activities of the State Department, the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in their economic relations with the Soviet Union and its successors. As part of her work she interacted with the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Later from 1992 to 1995, she was the first Chief of the Economic Section of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, responsible for strengthening economic cooperation between the two countries.[8] In 2003 she was awarded the Ukrainian Order of Princess Olga for her contributions to the Ukrainian economy.[14][15]

Between 2005 and 2010 Jaresko was a member of President Viktor Yushchenko's Foreign Investors Advisory Council and the Advisory Board of the Ukrainian Center for Promotion of Foreign Investment under the auspices of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.[14][15]

Jaresko also held several key positions in the private business sector. In February 2001 she became President and Chief Executive Officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF). In 2006, she co-founded Horizon Capital, where she served as a Managing Partner and Chief Executive Officer. In those positions she established and strengthened economic ties with Ukraine and Moldova.[14][1

Well, my brain short circuits. She's from Wall Street and our State Department . I see where the Masonic-Banker conspiracy buffs get their fodder.

If you find out how to make this simple, please advise so i can imitate your methodology.

old jim

 

[Derek Francis]

The Daily Show is Fox News for liberals.

 

[WWGD]

Would you say BBC, Guardian, Economist, WSJ and Rueters are fairly balanced?

WSJ outside of the editorial page, same , I would say, with the NYT.

 

[Derek Francis]

You're saying that the NY Times isn't liberal?

 

[mheslep]

The NYT would have all know that it can not be blamed for bias. As their motto in the top corner states, "Don’t hate the paper... hate the game.’” (Jon Stewart)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/jon-stewart-new-york-times-marco-rubio_n_7558910.html

 

[Ilja]

Among the political sources one is allowed to mention or link here there are no unbiased sources at all.

 

[Sophia]

democracynow.org
Their bias is leftish (each source has it's own bias). You can find there some events and statistics that are not usually covered by others. But I haven't visited their site for quite a long time.

 

[jim hardy]

democracynow.com
Their bias is leftish (each source has it's own bias). You can find there some events and statistics that are not usually covered by others. But I haven't visited their site for quite a long time.

It's Democracynow.org

and I'm glad you mentioned them. I like to watch Amy Goodman's TV show.
My David Stockman link above which suggested US meddling in Ukraine affairs was moderated out . Okay, fair enough LewRockwell is sort of out there, a 'postcards from the edge' blog if you will...
What i'd intended by it was to demonstrate that there is a point of view suggesting US is pushing Russia harder than i'd like. It doesn't make mainstream news.
Maybe the two links below will survive,
Here is Noam Chomsky's take, from an interview with Amy about this time last year:http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_after_dangerous_proxy_war

This is all very reminiscent of the early 1950s, when I was a graduate student then. At that time, the U.S. had overwhelming power, and it was able to use the United Nations as a battering ram against its enemy, the Soviet Union, so Russia was, of course, vetoing lots of resolutions, condemning it. And leading anthropologists in the United States and England developed a—began to analyze why the Russians are so negative, what makes them say no at the United Nations all the time. And their proposal was that the Russians are negative because they raise their children in swaddling clothes, and that makes them negative. The three or four of us at Harvard who thought this ridiculous used to call it diaperology. That’s being re-enacted—a takeoff on Kremlinology. This is being re-enacted right now.

But the fact is, whatever you think about Putin—OK, irritable, rat-faced man with Asperger’s, whatever you like—the Russians have a case. And you have to understand the case. And the case is understood here by people who bother to think. So, for example, there was a lead article in Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal, by John Mearsheimer with a title like something like "The West is Responsible for the Ukraine Crisis." And he was talking about the background. The background begins with the fall of the Soviet Union, 1989, 1990. There were negotiations between President Bush, James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev about how to deal with the issues that arose at the time. A crucial question is: What happens to NATO? NATO had been advertised, since its beginning, as necessary to protect western Europe from the Russian hordes. OK, no more Russian hordes, so what happens to NATO?

Well, we know what happened to NATO. But the crucial issue was this. Gorbachev agreed to allow Germany, a unified Germany, to join NATO, a hostile military alliance. It’s a pretty remarkable concession, if you think about the history of the preceding century, half-century. Germany alone had practically destroyed Russia several times, and now he was agreeing to have Germany join a hostile military alliance led by the only superpower. But there was a quid pro quo, that Germany—that NATO would not move one inch to the east. That was the phrase that was used in the interchanges, meaning to East Germany. And on that condition, they went forward. NATO immediately moved to East Germany. When Gorbachev vigorously protested, naturally, he was informed by the United States that it was only a verbal commitment, it wasn’t on paper. The unstated implication is, if you are naïve enough to think you can make a gentlemen’s agreement with us, it’s your problem. They didn’t say that; I’m saying that. But NATO moved to East Germany; under Clinton, moved right up to Russia’s borders.

At the time i thought "This is 1963 in reverse when Russia moved into Cuba and US objected strongly.

Here's the Mearsheimer article Chomsky referred to
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
By John J. Mearsheimer
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/modal_forms/nojs/link-form/pdf/1113262
[/PLAIN]
Purchase Audio
According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned

Log in or register for free to continue reading.

Perhaps I'm biased myself -
That old cold war movie "Bedford Incident" imprinted me early on - its message was too much zeal is how hot wars get started.

I was still riding a bicycle during Cuban Missile Crisis . The rail yard west of Miami Airport filled with troop trains and flatcars with tanks. We kids rode our bikes out there to gawk and chat with the soldiers, thought it exciting. Our parents were scared half to death.

But back to subject of thread
Peruse the think tanks. Even they all have their leanings but the writing style is less hyperbolic than 'blogs from the edge.'
But it puts me to sleep. I have to come back to PF for refreshing conversation.

old jim

 

[Sophia]

It's Democracynow.org

and I'm glad you mentioned them. I like to watch Amy Goodman's TV show.
My David Stockman link above which suggested US meddling in Ukraine affairs was moderated out . Okay, fair enough LewRockwell is sort of out there, a 'postcards from the edge' blog if you will...
What i'd intended by it was to demonstrate that there is a point of view suggesting US is pushing Russia harder than i'd like. It doesn't make mainstream news.
Maybe the two links below will survive,
Here is Noam Chomsky's take, from an interview with Amy about this time last year:http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_after_dangerous_proxy_warAt the time i thought "This is 1963 in reverse when Russia moved into Cuba and US objected strongly.

Here's the Mearsheimer article Chomsky referred to
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-faultPerhaps I'm biased myself -
That old cold war movie "Bedfoerd Incident" imprinted me early on - its message was too much zeal is how hot wars get started.

I was still riding a bicycle during Cuban Missile Crisis . The rail yard west of Miami Airport filled with troop trains and flatcars with tanks. We kids rode our bikes out there to gawk and chat with the soldiers, thought it exciting. Our parents were scared half to death.

But back to subject of thread
Peruse the think tanks. Even they all have their leanings but the writing style is less hyperbolic than 'blogs from the edge.'
But it puts me to sleep. I have to come back to PF for refreshing conversation.

old jim

Thank you Jim,
I've edited the post and corrected the link.
Thanks for the insiprational post, I fully agree. Though I am afraid this is not a place for such debate and it would be deleted if we continued. The truth is that the reality is always more complex than portrayed by mainstream media. Some bias is natural and cannot be avoided. And lot of it is censored/ommided/changed/added on pupose.
I think that the key strategy is to listen to both sides of each case.
What may be relevant as well is the bubble created by google for each user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble meaning that even if you try to search for unbiased information, google will give you the results it thinks you will like
For searches like these it is probably better to use search engines that don't require registration, such as duckduckgo.com

 

[jim hardy]

Though I am afraid this is not a place for such debate and it would be deleted if we continued.

Yes you're right. Much of my post belongs in a different thread.

I do get ocd sometimes. Sorry.Interesting about the google bubble. I've taken to using Bing because i'd noticed google steers me toward really radical sites.

 

[WWGD]

Yes you're right. Much of my post belongs in a different thread.

I do get ocd sometimes. Sorry.Interesting about the google bubble. I've taken to using Bing because i'd noticed google steers me toward really radical sites.

There is also Cuil : http://www.cuil.pt/

 

[jim hardy]

There is also Cuil : http://www.cuil.pt/

entering Ukraine coup on cuil's page and clicking search
it returns a message "loading" and nothing more.
(Maybe it doesn't like Arkansas hillbillies?)

Does it work for you?

 

[Sophia]

entering Ukraine coup on cuil's page and clicking search
it returns a message "loading" and nothing more.
(Maybe it doesn't like Arkansas hillbillies?)

Does it work for you?

it works fine for me. I'm really interested if it is really geographically censored

 

[WWGD]

entering Ukraine coup on cuil's page and clicking search
it returns a message "loading" and nothing more.
(Maybe it doesn't like Arkansas hillbillies?)

Does it work for you?

I got this: http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=0028257...of=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=ukraine+coup&sa=Search

 

[WWGD]

it works fine for me. I'm really interested if it is really geographically censored

Could you please post a link to your Cuil search results?

 

[Sophia]

Could you please post a link to your Cuil search results?

I got the same as you

 

[WWGD]

I got the same as you

That seems like a good sign; no filtering for geography at least.

 

[jim hardy]

I got this: http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=0028257...of=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=ukraine+coup&sa=Search

i get same "loading" message.