A loaded question about news stations.

[simka2]

Can someone tell me which US news stations are the most neutral? Pretty please?

[Amy1k]

;) Good luck with that.

[simka2]

;) Good luck with that.

 

I know *sigh* but I at least wanted to give it a shot. I have been steering clear of National news for almost a year, but with the earthquake today and the election I realized I had no idea which station I wanted to watch. :glare:

[Amy1k]

Well, their JOB is to get you excited and keep you watching, so it's asking a lot that they be honest and fair. Life isn't nearly exciting enough. :D I try to read lots of sources (I don't do any TV news, because I find their cliffhangers frustrating) and watch The Daily Show. That probably won't work for everyone, though. :D

[Amy1k]

I actually saw an interesting article recently about the news. I'm going to find it and link it.

[edelweiss]

They are all biased one way or another IMO.

[Amy1k]

https://www.gavindebecker.com/resources/article/media_fear_tactics/

[MrsBasil]

I've found news websites to be easier to handle in terms of bias. I think the NPR website, in regards to news, tends to be pretty evenhanded. The website seems to have a lot less shock or entertainment stories and a diverse and interesting base of stories.

 

The other thing is I use my local newspaper to read AP wire stories. They post several on their site or print them in the daily paper.

 

I feel like I need to have a paragraph long disclaimer stating that this is my opinion only. I'm sure they have been biased at times. I've backed away from all TV news and this is what I personally have found to be workable for me.

 

Without videos, pundits with varying opinions, call in shows, theme music, and so on.....the news is easier for me to take. :D

[Hillary in KS]

You know, there really isn't one.

 

Your best bet is to watch a couple that you know lean opposite, and take each with a grain of salt.

 

Or rely on websites.

 

O both. :D

[Georgiana Daniels]

Can someone tell me which US news stations are the most neutral? Pretty please?

 

:lol::lol:

 

IS there one?

 

I pretty much look at the Google newsfeed on my phone when I just want to strictly see what's going on, but that doesn't help if you want video, etc.

[LidiyaDawn]

If I'm interested in news from the USA (instead of Canada) I usually go to CNN .. it seems like a normal news station.

[ElizabethB]

From the introduction of Left Turn, a book based on analysis of the leanings of news outlets:

 

The results generally agreed with the claims of conservatives. For instance, our method found that 18 of the 20 outlets were left of center. The only two that were not were the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume.

 

Our findings, however, contradicted a few claims of conservatives. For instance, they showed that some mainstream news outlets are nearly perfectly centrist, albeit still left-leaning. Two were ABC’s Good Morning America and [PBS's] The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Also, we found that many supposedly far-left news outlets were not that far left. For instance, we found that National Public Radio was no more liberal than the Washington Post, Time, or Newsweek. And we found that it was less liberal than the average speech by Senator Joe Lieberman.

[lea1]

Hmmmmm. I really don't think such a thing exists anymore here, sadly enough.

[QueenCat]

I like NPR. With any controversial story, they seem to always have guests from more than one viewpoint or side. And they don't have guests yelling at each other to make a point.

[Karen in CO]

I don't watch news. I had almost quit when the earthquake hit Japan in the spring. I completely quit then. There were images everywhere that were sensationalizing a very real tragedy while I was trying to focus on a very short email that my son had sent, "There was a big earthquake, but I'm okay."

 

I understand that their job is to keep people watching. I don't have to buy it. I actively seek out multiple news sources and read in depth analysis. Hopefully you can find what you're looking for.

[Green Vixen]

I like NPR. With any controversial story, they seem to always have guests from more than one viewpoint or side. And they don't have guests yelling at each other to make a point.

 

:iagree:

 

Plus the guests they have are educated and not just someone they pulled off the street :lol:!

 

Marisa

[kalanamak]

I prefer radio. I listen to NPR sometimes, BBC more, Radio Netherlands, and stuff out of Canada (I'm near the border). TV is too .... profitable or at least tied up with money and really shooting for the "lowest common denominator" of humanity. But then, I hate TV and gave it up in 1971.

[Ritsumei]

I like NPR. With any controversial story, they seem to always have guests from more than one viewpoint or side. And they don't have guests yelling at each other to make a point.

 

Meh. I think they just accomplish their lean to the left differently. For example, when Brown won Sen. Kenedy's seat in the special election following Kenedy's death, I was in the car & switched them on. They were covering tatoos instead of the breaking news of the election upset. And I've heard their opinion people agree with blatant lies about my faith, but do it so late in the show that there was no time for a call to correct them. I used to listen a lot, but their conservative guests either seemed to be not that conservative, or to be not very well spoken. Once or twice is conincidence. Regularly this is bias, IMO. NPR is probably my least favorite of the news folks.

 

I'd agree that there really isn't anyone. You're probably best off looking at several outlets, and including alternative news sources, and forming your own opinion.

[ktgrok]

Meh. I think they just accomplish their lean to the left differently. For example, when Brown won Sen. Kenedy's seat in the special election following Kenedy's death, I was in the car & switched them on. They were covering tatoos instead of the breaking news of the election upset. And I've heard their opinion people agree with blatant lies about my faith, but do it so late in the show that there was no time for a call to correct them. I used to listen a lot, but their conservative guests either seemed to be not that conservative, or to be not very well spoken. Once or twice is conincidence. Regularly this is bias, IMO. NPR is probably my least favorite of the news folks.

 

I'd agree that there really isn't anyone. You're probably best off looking at several outlets, and including alternative news sources, and forming your own opinion.

 

To be fair, they almost never switch from regular programming to a breaking story. Even today they stuck with their regular stories for the most part, with updates about the earthquake every so often, say the top of the hour. That is just how they work. And one of the reasons I listen. I hate hearing about one story for hours and hours. Tell me the facts in one bite, then move on to another story.

[Mama Geek]

I think for something like a natural disaster that any of the news stations would probably be fine. If you aren't into watching the new I wouldn't leave it on for real long though. They try to drag viewers in by adding more drama to it. I would say that is true for all of them.

[Parker Martin]

I get the Wall Street Journal on Kindle. I love their news coverage.

[flyingiguana]

When something big is happening, the BBC has constant updates on their website. They often run their latest video on the event. Here's the current one for Libya:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14610722

 

The only problem is that the BBC doesn't necessarily focus on the US. They'll report it as much as they report anything around the world, but they don't do the 24/7 thing on anything unless it's truly momentous. (And a teeny earthquake on the East Coast, frankly, isn't all that momentous -- but I'm coming from a California perspective.)

 

As well as the BBC, you could try the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/

It has more of a US outlook, but I don't see a video feed.

 

The PBS Newshour is pretty good, but they've gone even further to an analysis format than they used to be. If you want an in depth discussion, though, you might find them interesting.

 

NPR has become more of a news magazine than a breaking news source. I suspect that the BBC has more government funding than NPR or PBS, which is why the BBC can do more news than either of them (news being rather expensive). So while NPR is doing hourly news updates, it doesn't seem to me that they've really got a lot of reporters in the field.

 

As far as bias goes on NPR and PBS, though, I think they tend to be pretty centrist. There are those who claim they're leftist, but those on the left don't really think so. If they were, there are a lot of stories they'd be covering that they don't touch (until the stories get more mainstream).

 

If you want leftist, try Democracy Now:

http://www.democracynow.org/

But it is possible they won't seem all that leftist because they don't do the "outrage" bit quite like Fox news or other more right-leaning outlets.

 

The three "old-time" major network news shows (ABC, NBC, and CBS) don't strike me as having much bias at all -- they're too fluffy for bias to show, if there is any. Fox obviously is biased, while still being fluffy. CNN is all sensationalism. Who would be able to tell if they were biased? They never get to the point.

 

I find the Daily Show to be a nice round up of news sources at times, but I don't have the patience to sit through the whole thing. I wait for other people to extract the interesting clips and post them on other news sources on the web.

 

I just don't watch TV news much. The web is a lot quicker and there are a lot more sources.

Edited August 24, 2011 by flyingiguana

[ElizabethB]

Here is the ratings that Tim Groseclose gave, his website lists a bunch more, you can see ratings for most major media:

 

http://www.timgroseclose.com/is-media-slanted/

 

We don't have a TV, either, but the data is interesting!

[twoforjoy]

Here is the ratings that Tim Groseclose gave, his website lists a bunch more, you can see ratings for most major media:

 

http://www.timgroseclose.com/is-media-slanted/

 

We don't have a TV, either, but the data is interesting!

 

I'm not sure I'd trust assessments of "bias" by somebody who is pushing a conservative agenda. I also really question the methodology used, because it seems designed to get the results they wanted.

 

I think the mainstream corporate media is, in general, decidedly conservative on economic and foreign policy issues and somewhat liberal when it comes to social issues.

Edited August 24, 2011 by twoforjoy

[simka2]

Here is the ratings that Tim Groseclose gave, his website lists a bunch more, you can see ratings for most major media:

 

http://www.timgroseclose.com/is-media-slanted/

 

We don't have a TV, either, but the data is interesting!

 

Very interesting!

[simka2]

I'm not sure I'd trust assessments of "bias" by somebody who is pushing a conservative agenda.

 

I had this thought as well. That said, as I looked he places Fox News far right, so it isn't as if he is saying Fox news is centrist. ;)

 

Just because he is conservative doesn't mean he cannot let the facts stand, anymore than just because someone is liberal means that they will automatically spin it left.

[Slartibartfast]

Meh. I think they just accomplish their lean to the left differently. For example, when Brown won Sen. Kenedy's seat in the special election following Kenedy's death, I was in the car & switched them on. They were covering tatoos instead of the breaking news of the election upset. And I've heard their opinion people agree with blatant lies about my faith, but do it so late in the show that there was no time for a call to correct them. I used to listen a lot, but their conservative guests either seemed to be not that conservative, or to be not very well spoken. Once or twice is conincidence. Regularly this is bias, IMO. NPR is probably my least favorite of the news folks.

 

I'd agree that there really isn't anyone. You're probably best off looking at several outlets, and including alternative news sources, and forming your own opinion.

 

To be fair, they almost never switch from regular programming to a breaking story. Even today they stuck with their regular stories for the most part, with updates about the earthquake every so often, say the top of the hour. That is just how they work. And one of the reasons I listen. I hate hearing about one story for hours and hours. Tell me the facts in one bite, then move on to another story.

 

I agree with ktgrok, they don't typically break in but give brief updates at the top of the hour. That is my preference because random reporter standing outside some location babbling is not something I typically want to watch. I find it surprising that Conservative guests have been uneducated or unable to speak well because they have had so very many.

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

 

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

 

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

 

I am sorry, but I disagree. I listen to NPR everyday and I do not hear what you are saying in the slightest, my experience is just the opposite. I do believe they have Conservative guests on frequently and they are certainly not uneducated or ill-spoken.

 

Who lied about your faith? What did they say?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

I don't find all of them to be bias but I often find the typical television style of reporting to be tiresome. It is so sensationalized and overwrought that I just can't take it anymore.

 

It is like Taffy. You can stretch taffy out as much as you want but you always have the same amount of taffy. I just want it in a wad...I don't want to follow the taffy stretched out all over creation.

 

I do listen to NPR because it is a lot calmer and there are some interesting stories...and I love the quiz shows, Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk.

 

I also like the Christian Science Monitor and the BBC.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Sis

[ElizabethB]

I'm not sure I'd trust assessments of "bias" by somebody who is pushing a conservative agenda. I also really question the methodology used, because it seems designed to get the results they wanted.

 

I think the mainstream corporate media is, in general, decidedly conservative on economic and foreign policy issues and somewhat liberal when it comes to social issues.

 

You can read his intro and preface for more about his methodology and his response to that, the short version is that he method he uses is based on issues chosen by the Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal interest group.

 

You can read the book for yourself and judge--for me as a statistician, the most interesting thing was seeing how the data played into news bias (on both sides.) The book has a lot of interesting data.

[Little Nyssa]

I like the New York Times and its website because the news often appears there quicker than on other sites, and the articles are more detailed and thoughtful.

[leeannpal]

Instead of trying to find one unbiased news source, why not watch several channels at different times. Add in internet news sources and news radio ocassionally, and you might be able to better distinguish to bias and get a more accurate picture of news stories.

[Parker Martin]

You could always read something like the NYT or watch a mainstream TV news channel and then read Instapundit. That would balance it all out. :001_smile:

[elfgivas]

I'm not sure I'd trust assessments of "bias" by somebody who is pushing a conservative agenda. I also really question the methodology used, because it seems designed to get the results they wanted.

 

I think the mainstream corporate media is, in general, decidedly conservative on economic and foreign policy issues and somewhat liberal when it comes to social issues.

 

:iagree: i was trying to figure out how to say this neutrally, and you did a good job.

 

we turned off the tv during the first gulf war. for news, we use online the bbc, the canadian broadcast company and al jazeera english, who are doing a good job of covering news rather than opinions. we read "the economist" cover to cover each week, even though it is right leaning, and we are grateful that it still substantiates its opinions with actual data that one can check. it still covers news more than opinions, and is clear when what they are offering is more opinion than news.

 

fwiw,

ann

[kalanamak]

 

NPR has become more of a news magazine than a breaking news source.

 

As far as bias goes on NPR and PBS, though, I think they tend to be pretty centrist. There are those who claim they're leftist, but those on the left don't really think so. If they were, there are a lot of stories they'd be covering that they don't touch (until the stories get more mainstream).

 

I don't listen to NPR even weekly, but I've been listening here and there for nearly 30 years, and I don't recall ONE "breaking news" that came before the hourly update.

 

Regarding our local public radio stations, I hear a lot more about religion on them then any but the All Religion All The Time channels, and I don't think of that as "left". I have also noticed a baseball bias. Over, say, hockey or football, which always reminds me of old-fashioned money because I've only met baseball fans en masse in NYC. Us in the hoi poloi out here deal with fantasy football, and almost nothing about other sports except for the occ. soccer lout.

[kalanamak]

x

Edited August 25, 2011 by kalanamak
How did two show up?

[kalanamak]

we read "the economist" cover to cover each week, even though it is right leaning, and we are grateful that it still substantiates its opinions with actual data that one can check. it still covers news more than opinions, and is clear when what they are offering is more opinion than news.

 

The Economist is unabashedly free market capitalist, but works hard, IMO, to stick with "what works" in regards to health, environment, etc, rather than a set agenda. They are not anarchists when it comes to natural resources. Socially, it is more libertarian. I like the good grammar and strictly correct usage of English, as well. :)

[Parrothead]

I don't watch news. I have NPR, BBC CNA and the National Catholic Register in my bookmarks for my daily news. Occasionally I'll read Fox and CNN. Usually both not one with out the other due to the bias.

[elegantlion]

I use BBC a lot, and the Hive news. I found more about the earthquake here than at any news source I looked at yesterday.

[Heather in Neverland]

https://www.gavindebecker.com/resources/article/media_fear_tactics/

 

That article was awesome! Thanks for sharing.

[Ritsumei]

 

Who lied about your faith? What did they say?

 

It was Jean Farakas (sp?) of Here On Earth. It was somewhere around 5 years ago, and I don't recall for sure the exact details of the guest's presentation because until the last 5 min if the show it was a non-event. I believe that they were discussing marriage practices in India, with a focus on child-brides. They had a caller say that we don't have to go to India to find child-brides, Mormons were doing it here in the US. Which was never practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The statement was patiently false.

 

I don't know how much responsibility the host would bear for the initial statement: the screening process isn't very tight. But the host agreed with her: "oh, yes. Right here in our own backyard." Or something very like that. And then she wrapped the show up so I wasn't able to get through and tell her that it's just not true. I have ancestors who practiced polygamy. I understand that there are a lot of people who think it's disgusting, and I'd be lying if I said I was 100% comfortable with it. But it was consensual, between adults. I have read histories and journals of my family members that lived that life, and it is NOT was they were talking about on that show. It was NOT like the little 5 year olds in India getting married. To say otherwise is the grossest of slanders, and she didn't have to go there, even if her guest did. She could have said something that fell short of agreeing. She could have said a number of different things that would have been less offensive and more true.

 

Such carelessness on the part of that host severely shook my confidence in NPR, and they never did regain it.

 

As for Sen. Scott Brown, I never heard any coverage of his election on NPR, except in the most general of terms at the top of the hour. Yet a Republican of any type taking Sen. Kennedy's seat had the nation talking about what it might mean, how it might reflect the mood of the nation, and what it would mean for the President's health care agenda. It was all over the news for weeks leading up to the election, yet NPR chose to cover tatoos (I learned what a "tramp stamp" is) when I'd hoped for election coverage. Since it was a huge on all the networks at the time, it seems very odd to me that they would choose to ignore it completely. We don't watch much TV, and NPR in the car was my primary news source at the time, in spite of the gaffe on Here On Earth a couple years prior to that. My husband and I had definitely grown weary of the left-lean, and the silence on the election of Scott Brown was the final straw. I stopped listening to them. So maybe they've improved since then, since you say that you don't notice that bias any more. My husband and I definitely did a couple of years ago. The "conservatives" didn't strike us as very conservative, or they weren't well spoken, or they were just didn't cover things that a conservative would be interested in - such was the case with Scott Brown. There are many ways that a bias can manifest. It wasn't always the same, and it wasn't consistent across the hosts. If I remember correctly, Ben Marens was often a breath of fresh air among their hosts. You could still sometimes tell which "side" had his sympathy, but he was more neutral in his hosting more of the time, and I respected that. Unfortunately, he was just one guy.

[Marylou]

http://www.worldmag.com/

[Ritsumei]

I use BBC a lot, and the Hive news. I found more about the earthquake here than at any news source I looked at yesterday.

:iagree:Facebook's pretty good too, for me, lol.

[deacongirl]

http://thedianerehmshow.org/

 

I love Diane Rehm. I think she does a great job of discussing issues respectfully in depth with guests with lots of different viewpoints. The Friday news hour in particular is super informative. I love the interviews she has with authors the most though.

[Laurie4b]

I just read two different biased ones each day--one tilts right, the other left. Generally the news is covered pretty much the same--occasionally, there is a different slant. It is fairly common for one to cover a story that the other omits.

[tntgoodwin]

I don't believe there is a true neutral source. Even just choosing what to report or not report on shows some kind of bias. The best thing I think is to use multiple sources, and understand their biases, and filter the news that way.

Another issue is the fact that we do not have a true binary system. It is not accurate to say a source leans "left" or "right" since left and right mean different things to different people. It is all about perspective.