Gyroscopic Investing

It seems to me that we're at a place in the US where it's silly to pretend that one particular news source or the other, are unbiased (insert fair/balanced/etc).

Obviously we all bring political beliefs, life experiences, religious dogma, values, and other factors that influence our vies on events.  It stands to reason that media members are not non-human, emotionless robots that can look 100% objectively at events and write or report on them fairly.

It's obvious to me anyway, that all major news outlets such as NYT, WSJ, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, talk radio, politico, et al are all politically biased one way or another.  Some are much more blatant than others.  The hard news outlets such as the networks and major newspapers try to conceal their nature more than say a Rush Limbaugh or Ed Schultz, but they certainly have a fair amount of bias none the less. 

Does anyone disagree with that?

What is (in your opinion) the most independent or unbiased news source that you have seen?

My answer might be realclearpolitics but I'm sure that's relative to my political beliefs.

There are no unbiased humans, so I don't think it would make sense to go looking for unbiased news outlets. Personally, I don't read much news anymore, but when I do, I find that it helps to acknowledge the bias of the source I'm reading and consciously seek out sources with the opposite bias. Usually the truth is somewhere between the two, and even if it isn't, I've at least gotten some interesting perspectives.

Not only do the humans on the radio & TV news shows have biases but so do their advertisers. I think it's impossible to avoid bias but it's very possible (though not easy!) to change the channel and listen to points of view that do not align with our own. I do this as an exercise from time to time when I am riding in the car and listening to the radio. I prefer NPR over Rush Limbaugh but I try to give the Rush Man a listen here and there.

Which brings me to a question that I have wanted to put forth on this forum... Why do posters so readily refer to "the liberal news media" when we can get all kinds of ideas via the airwaves? BTW, I am not familiar with realclearpolitics but will check it out.

I find that Breibart and the Drudge Report (a little less so) work well for me to get my dose of right-of-center perspectives. Can't stand Rush, but I think it's just a personality conflict. I can't stand arrogant, self-important blowhards, even if it may just be a stage personality.

I try to parse out what is hard fact or at least allegedly the facts. I read between the lines and form my own opinion about the implications of the alleged "facts".

I don't care about bias. Watching FOX or MSNBC is the exact same to me because I tune out any opinions with newspapers and TV.

Just the facts mam'n.


Ok they're not exactly the same. The ladies on Fox generally do not have as distingushed moustaches as the "ladies" on MSNBC.

barrett wrote: Not only do the humans on the radio & TV news shows have biases but so do their advertisers. I think it's impossible to avoid bias but it's very possible (though not easy!) to change the channel and listen to points of view that do not align with our own. I do this as an exercise from time to time when I am riding in the car and listening to the radio. I prefer NPR over Rush Limbaugh but I try to give the Rush Man a listen here and there.

Which brings me to a question that I have wanted to put forth on this forum... Why do posters so readily refer to "the liberal news media" when we can get all kinds of ideas via the airwaves? BTW, I am not familiar with realclearpolitics but will check it out.

I think the "liberal news medial" which many conservatives think is synonymous with the "mainstream news media" is a term that used to be fairly accurate before internet/FNC/talk radio changed things.

Now I consider it a fairly even fight now frankly.  Conservatives have plenty of options to go for their news.  Same for liberals. 

I know we don't normally talk about Israel on this forum without a lot of heat, eventually (with my culpability as great as anyone else's). I just want to say that I caught an Al Jazeera piece on the Gaza conflict this evening and it was refreshingly impartial & sober.

After 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War, a lot of people thought Al Jazeera was a joke, a mouthpiece for the bad guys simply because they had access to enemy combatants that we could never have. The truth is they've always taken flak from all sides. As long as they are not reporting on their home base of Qatar, they can be pretty good.

1. The Week magazine (weekly) summarizes the past weeks news and while still liberal slanted on some things at least tries to present both sides on many things.

2. Of all titles "Christian Science Monitor" (now online only) tends to be pretty unbiased.

I think that Fox News pretty much tells it like it is.

Reub wrote: I think that Fox News pretty much tells it like it is.

(spit take)

dualstow wrote:

Reub wrote: I think that Fox News pretty much tells it like it is.

(spit take)

+1

Simonjester wrote: an interesting article, about methods media use to create the bias we are disusing
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/07/11-ways-mainstream-media-manufacture-consent-oligarchy/

What a difference c .. s makes! 

... Mountaineer

BBC is still very good I think. I also agree with the Al Jazeera comment, they are quite good but I would slightly amend the earlier comment to they are good when they are reporting outside of the Middle East. I think PBS is quite good when they aren't reporting on social issues. For US news I have actually gone back to CNN. Fox, NBC particularly MSNBC, ABC and CBS either are a complete joke or aren't really very good at news anymore. All in all it is tough to get good news in the US I think. However, as I've gotten older I don't really read newspapers and mainly what I look for during a day is major stories that could affect us (me) in real life in a major way. For the rest I just find I have better things to do with my time.