Objective Unbiased News source

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

you've said this before and last time all you produced was an editorial, what are biasing this on?

Your definition of 'left' permits:

• Anti-UHC
• Anti-Minimum Wage Increases
• Pro-[Tax Cuts for the Wealthy]

Our definitions are incompatible.  We will never see eye-to-eye.

[moj]

you've said this before and last time all you produced was an editorial, what are biasing this on?

Your definition of 'left' permits:

• Anti-UHC
• Anti-Minimum Wage Increases
• Pro-[Tax Cuts for the Wealthy]

Our definitions are incompatible.  We will never see eye-to-eye.

show your work man, you made a claim that NPR is center right with a corporate bias, how do you get there? Not sure what you just typed is about?

ETA WTF are you talking about my definition of left? Do you think I believe the things you listed or think I think that's what NPR thinks? Its not really clear what you mean or how it relates to what I asked.

[Captain Video]

I have said this before in a similar discussion. I don't think its correct to put Reason on the right.  If a conservative had made the chart they would have put them on the left,  I place them left of center.  With opinions on equality, drug prohibition and border control they are further left than some of the left news media.  Other opinions mite be further right. They don't really fit in either.

[arthwollipot]

These diagrams list only American news sources, with the notable exception of the BBC. As I said before, if you want your news with less bias, you are going to need to go offshore.

Answers With Joe has a pretty good video on how American news media got that way.

[Quetzalcoatl]

The Economist and The Guardian are not American, they are British.

[John Albert]

I accuse you of promoting vegan propaganda.

Which is an absurd accusation. I am not, and never have been a vegan.

I eat meat on a near daily basis. I'm just not an ideological screwball about it.

How about this?

This needs to be updated. Natural News is extremely right-wing these days, has been for a while. It's basically Infowars at this point.

Of course this chart is subject to the drifts of the Overton Window, as well as political shifts in the editorial boards of the various outlets.

Alex Jones occasionally cites Natural News as a source, and Natural News owner Mike Adams is a semi-regular guest on The Alex Jones Show.

[Billzbub]

Of course this chart is subject to the drifts of the Overton Window, as well as political shifts in the editorial boards of the various outlets.

Alex Jones occasionally cites Natural News as a source, and Natural News owner Mike Adams is a semi-regular guest on The Alex Jones Show.

Maybe that chart wraps around the left and right edges like a cylinder.

[Ah.hell]

Of course this chart is subject to the drifts of the Overton Window, as well as political shifts in the editorial boards of the various outlets.

Alex Jones occasionally cites Natural News as a source, and Natural News owner Mike Adams is a semi-regular guest on The Alex Jones Show.

Maybe that chart wraps around the left and right edges like a cylinder.

I think its the thing were conspiracists all seem to get a long even though the disagree in almost every detail of their conspiracies because they agree on the one important thing, the common narrative is a lie!

[John Albert]

Of course this chart is subject to the drifts of the Overton Window, as well as political shifts in the editorial boards of the various outlets.

Alex Jones occasionally cites Natural News as a source, and Natural News owner Mike Adams is a semi-regular guest on The Alex Jones Show.

Maybe that chart wraps around the left and right edges like a cylinder.

Only if you intend it to promote the Horseshoe Theory.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I think there is a lot of merit to the horseshoe theory.

[arthwollipot]

The Economist and The Guardian are not American, they are British.

You're right - my mistake. Notice that both of them are in the Complex, Minimal Bias oval.

[Beef Wellington]

Can yanyoneou guys suggest a objective unbiased weekly news source?
Just the facts.

I'm sure this was a simple mistake but it immediately reminded me of Dover-

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

[Nosmas]

So.... No one wants to answer my ACTUAL question. They just want to tell me how my question is wrong. Typical skeptic attitude. This is why I am not a activist.

OH MY I JUST MADE A "SWEEPING GENERALIZATION"

Thank you for advocating for me Billzbub.

It's not just you guys. I have been really irritated lately by people's tendency to answer questions on forums by NOT ACTUALLY ANSWERING THEM AT ALL.

Surely some reasonable person here understands the SPIRIT of my question and will give me the ACTUAL NAME of a new source that they believe to be the most unbiased possible by the human brain. I will sort out the parts that I think may not be.

While I think this level of response is a little uncalled for in this thread, I get where the general frustration comes from. I often find skeptics, and this forum in particular, will take every question or statement literally and do their best to reply with a "Well ACTUALLY..." type of post. I find it hard to believe that many people are unable to recognize the spirit of a question and it sometimes feels like an excuse for people to show off their super literal scrutinizing skeptical powers.

[Sawyer]

So.... No one wants to answer my ACTUAL question. They just want to tell me how my question is wrong. Typical skeptic attitude. This is why I am not a activist.

OH MY I JUST MADE A "SWEEPING GENERALIZATION"

Thank you for advocating for me Billzbub.

It's not just you guys. I have been really irritated lately by people's tendency to answer questions on forums by NOT ACTUALLY ANSWERING THEM AT ALL.

Surely some reasonable person here understands the SPIRIT of my question and will give me the ACTUAL NAME of a new source that they believe to be the most unbiased possible by the human brain. I will sort out the parts that I think may not be.

While I think this level of response is a little uncalled for in this thread, I get where the general frustration comes from. I often find skeptics, and this forum in particular, will take every question or statement literally and do their best to reply with a "Well ACTUALLY..." type of post. I find it hard to believe that many people are unable to recognize the spirit of a question and it sometimes feels like an excuse for people to show off their super literal scrutinizing skeptical powers.

But what if we disagree with the core premise of the question to begin with?  I think the people responding that "HEY THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED NEWS PAL" aren't merely being pedantic, but are expressing some frustration at this obsession with objectivity and the quest for the One True News Source to Rule Them All.

And I mention it every time I see them posted here, but I despise those goddamn media bias infographics.  Their obsession with quantifying bias and reliability obscures any detailed analysis of the strengths and weakness of particular outlets, not to mention the bizarre realignments that happen when chunking far left media outlets into a single/two axes graph.  FFS, the one Beef posted has Vox, Jacobin, and MSNBC all in the same sphere.  I couldn't make a worse guide to understanding political media if I tried.

[Gigabyte]

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."
George Orwell