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

[bballwaterboy]

I feel like it's hard to find good political news and commentary that's unbiased and reputable (Fox News ought to be shut down). What are the most popular, reputable, and unbiased sources that you guys know of (if any exist!)?

 

[Bandersnatch]

unbiased sources

The set has cardinality equal to zero.

I think that getting news is not about finding the mystical unbiased source, it's about finding sources whose bias you understand well enough to see the events behind, and preferably with little enough 'padding' to leave some actual meat once you remove it all.

Having said that, I liked Jon Steward a lot. Now that he's gone, and so is Colbert, all I've left is John Oliver.

 

[DEvens]

Interesting that you can see the bias in Fox, but don't seem to be able to see any other bias.

For example, the phrase "ought to be shut down" contains plenty of bias internally. It shows a distinct pro-statist bias, since it implicitly approves the notion that an appropriate action on the part of a government is to shut down an organization that thinks differently from some official standard. Apparently "bias" in your view means "thinks differently to me." And the correct response in your view is brute physical force.

The proper response to speech you don't like is more speech, not suppression. The conditions required for this is that nobody be permitted to use force to suppress anybody else.

The few events that I have personally witnessed and that have then been covered by the drive-by-media have all been done really quite excruciatingly poorly. For broadcast media, CNN leads the charge in bad. The other networks are less bad only because they are less far reaching.

 

[Czcibor]

I feel like it's hard to find good political news and commentary that's unbiased and reputable (Fox News ought to be shut down). What are the most popular, reputable, and unbiased sources that you guys know of (if any exist!)?

Out of English language media I like The Economist. Well thought articles, ideologically rather neutral with pragmatic pro business bent.

Interesting that you can see the bias in Fox, but don't seem to be able to see any other bias.

For example, the phrase "ought to be shut down" contains plenty of bias internally. It shows a distinct pro-statist bias, since it implicitly approves the notion that an appropriate action on the part of a government is to shut down an organization that thinks differently from some official standard. Apparently "bias" in your view means "thinks differently to me." And the correct response in your view is brute physical force.

The proper response to speech you don't like is more speech, not suppression. The conditions required for this is that nobody be permitted to use force to suppress anybody else.

The few events that I have personally witnessed and that have then been covered by the drive-by-media have all been done really quite excruciatingly poorly. For broadcast media, CNN leads the charge in bad. The other networks are less bad only because they are less far reaching.

Well, phrase "ought not to be shut down" also contains plenty of anti-statist bias. ;) If you point out there can be here any "correct" answer which applies in all cases, then you also presented serious bias.

(I'm NOT saying that you should shut down Fox News, I just say, that American style semi-religious belief in freedom of speech is far from being a neutral option. Actually, when I was younger I even shared this belief. Fundamentalist Muslim preachers and Kremlin paid trolls made me rethink the whole idea.)

 

[DEvens]

Well, phrase "ought not to be shut down" also contains plenty of anti-statist bias. ;) If you point out there can be here any "correct" answer which applies in all cases, then you also presented serious bias.

There is a fundamental difference. In order to find the truth, a non-biased position, it is necessary to perform reality based correction to ideas. The only way that is possible is if people are permitted to express ideas to be tested against reality.

In other words, lack of free speech is automatically biased. Free speech may be wrong, but it is the only way that errors can be corrected.

This is the nature of science.

 

[Czcibor]

There is a fundamental difference. In order to find the truth, a non-biased position, it is necessary to perform reality based correction to ideas. The only way that is possible is if people are permitted to express ideas to be tested against reality.

Works under assumptions:
-that people bother to make some serious fact check
-try to find something outside what already confirms their believes
-there is no serious manipulation with starting data

In other words, lack of free speech is automatically biased. Free speech may be wrong, but it is the only way that errors can be corrected.

Not specially. Explain for example how ex. German laws concerning Holocaust denial make the debate biased? ;) (I'm not saying that they are specially useful, but I don't see the biased part) In both cases you can have a bias. Just instead of official one, you may have an unofficial (for example: bad news or sexied up news sells better)

This is the nature of science.

Sure, but you are trying to move its methodology into area where it does not work so well.

 

[SteamKing]

There is a fundamental difference. In order to find the truth, a non-biased position, it is necessary to perform reality based correction to ideas. The only way that is possible is if people are permitted to express ideas to be tested against reality.

In other words, lack of free speech is automatically biased. Free speech may be wrong, but it is the only way that errors can be corrected.

This is the nature of science.

If it's politics, it's hard to be non-biased.

If you want to shut down Fox News, then ABCBSCNNMSNBC got to go, too, becuz, like it or not, their editorial policies are also slanted one way or t'other.

It's quite fashionable in certain circles in the US, more so in Yurp, that the state ought to decide who can speak about what and where and when they may do so.
The UK is reportedly working on legislation which restrains the press there from publishing certain stories. This is, IMO, a retrograde step.

I would let a million mullahs talk for all they could every day about how everyone should submit to their religion, but only if I can talk about and show what submission actually entails.

If we suppress what the mullahs talk about, so too then should we not suppress what ISIS does to people it says are unbelievers in the territory which they control?

President Obama has recently made headlines by concluding an agreement with Teheran on their nuclear weapons program. The details of this agreement have not been made public, even to congressional officials who presumably have security clearance. Why?

If facts are suppressed, then informed discussion cannot take place, and if informed discussion cannot take place, then how can rational decisions be made?

 

[Czcibor]

I would let a million mullahs talk for all they could every day about how everyone should submit to their religion, but only if I can talk about and show what submission actually entails.

I think that freedom of speech means that they can decide to talk only about the prettier / more attractive part. Anyway, in that case they don't have to convince you. It would be absolutely enough to convince your neighbour concerning merits of decapitating infidels.

(yeah, when I understood that I faced a crisis of faith)

 

[SteamKing]

Not specially. Explain for example how ex. German laws concerning Holocaust denial make the debate biased? ;) (I'm not saying that they are specially useful, but I don't see the biased part) In both cases you can have a bias. Just instead of official one, you may have an unofficial (for example: bad news or sexied up news sells better)

Germany may forbid its citizens from publishing Holocaust denial articles and whatnot, but that does not suppress the idea which some people hold: that Germany was the "victim" in the War and it was all the fault of the Jews and that Germans have nothing to apologize for. Same with suppressing Nazis, neo-Nazis, etc. Not fundamentally different than when the Nazis suppressed the Communists and the non-National Socialist groups after 1933. There's still going to be some Germans who subscribe to Nazi philosophy and beliefs even today, after it should be apparent to all where such beliefs lead.

If the intent of these German laws was to eradicate Holocaust denial or to keep people from being seduced by Naziism or anti-Semitism, they have failed miserably.

I'm not saying that Germany will suddenly turn back the clock to 1933, but that suppressing something, something as odious as denial of what happened in the Death Camps, will inevitably be attractive to certain people, if nothing else, because it is forbidden to discuss such things.

 

[SteamKing]

I think that freedom of speech means that they can decide to talk only about the prettier / more attractive part. Anyway, in that case they don't have to convince you. It would be absolutely enough to convince your neighbour concerning merits of decapitating infidels.

(yeah, when I understood that I faced a crisis of faith)

That's why having a strong belief in the right of free speech also entails a necessary belief in the right of a person also to bear arms: to keep those at bay who are so weak-minded that they believe they can only live amongst others of identical beliefs, and to eradicate those who do not hold the same beliefs as they.

It's not an accident that the First Two Amendments to the US Constitution are 1.) Freedom of Speech and Religion, and 2.) the Right to Bear arms, if for nothing else, self defense.

 

[mheslep]

There's still going to be some Germans who subscribe to Nazi philosophy and beliefs even today, after it should be apparent to all where such beliefs lead.

There are likely to be some people in many countries who subscribe to Nazi beliefs.

American Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden, 1939

 

[SteamKing]

There are likely to be some people in many countries who subscribe to Nazi beliefs.

American Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden, 1939

The American Bund had its day in the late 1930s, but it was a localized phenomenon, confined to areas which had a large German immigrant population, or which had populations descended from German immigrants. The FBI kept tabs on these organizations, even after Germany declared war on the US in 1941, to make sure that no subversive activity was going on.

Still, the Bund did have their summer retreats and rallies which were modeled on what the Nazis were doing in the Old Country, and it made great copy for newspapers of the time, but as a political force, it was nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-home-pro-Nazi-camp-street-named-Hitler.html

People are surprised to learn that Hitler's half-brother's son lived for many years on Long Island after coming to America in 1939:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/nyregion/24patchogue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[mheslep]

So too today, Nazi sympathizers are tiny minority. As Nazi Germany was destroyed, literally razed to the ground in many places, I don't think sympathizers are any more prevalent in Germany than in the US, Canada, etc.

 

[WWGD]

How about hate speech directed at minors (in the Web)? Some teenagers have killed themselves (at least partially) as a result of intensive harassment campaigns. An adult may be somewhat able to put things into perspective and defend him/herself, but what about teenagers/children?

 

[Evo]

Ok, if IO'm not mistaken, the OP was thinking of the news coverage of the upcoming US Presidential elections, so let's please reign this in and limit it to that topic.

 

[SteamKing]

How about hate speech directed at minors (in the Web)? Some teenagers have killed themselves (at least partially) as a result of intensive harassment campaigns. An adult may be somewhat able to put things into perspective and defend him/herself, but what about teenagers/children?

These incidents unfortunately do not occur only on the web. Many young people get bullied in person by their peers, at school and other places where kids tend to hang around one another.

Why kids decide that taking one's life is an acceptable solution is anyone's guess, but it suggests to me that the victims lack someone in their lives to whom they can confide, who will stand up to those who are making their lives miserable. All too often, despite the PSAs about standing up to bullies and bullying, school administrators prefer to look the other way, if not blame the victim for the trouble they receive.

The web, for all its benefits, allows strangers unparalleled access to the lives of kids and others who seem to live on social networks. As a parent, you are the government in your household. You are not required to abide by the Constitution. You must make the decision for your kids on how much they use the web and with whom they interact. If the web becomes too stressful and dangerous, it's better to pull the plug entirely than to suffer a tragedy. Find something else for your kid to spend time on. People got along before Facebook and Twitter; they can get along without them.

I don't know if it is spending too much time on the web when kids are extremely young or what, but a lot of people these days seem to lack self-confidence, and this is a quality which is hard to develop if one is subjected to a constant barrage of criticism and derogation, especially if done so by choice.

 

[Bystander]

not mistaken, the OP was thinking of the news coverage of the upcoming US Presidential elections

unbiased sources that you guys know of (if any exist!)?

The set has cardinality equal to zero.

Hopefully, no one here is unaware that they are ALL selling something. Caveat emptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke

 

[Vanadium 50]

The statement that voices that disagree with you should be silenced is an implicit admission that you are losing the war of ideas.

Every source has some bias, if only in the choice of topics they cover. If you want to be informed, you need to rely on multiple sources - that's why I follow both Mother Jones and Fox. And, while people like to bash Fox, I find it's news (as opposed to commentary) to be quite good, and not slanted as far to the right as people who have never watched it often claim. (It's also difficult to compare Fox to MSNBC, because MSNBC no longer does news - only commentary)

 

[Tobias Funke]

Wow, the guy makes a parenthetical remark and all of a sudden he supports a totalitarian regime that wants to brutally suppress free speech! It's more likely that he (I think that's a safe bet based on the name) means that Fox News willfully lies and distorts facts, which certainly approaches---or should---the limits of what is covered under free speech. It's also likely that he doesn't actually want Fox News taken down by "brute physical force." Talk about an overreaction. I'd even call it idiotic, but ironically that might get this comment deleted, making me the winner of this war of ideas.

 

[Bystander]

Fox News willfully lies and distorts facts

? Wouldn't know --- the Fox ticker comes through with some hysterically funny typos from their interns, but otherwise correct; the CNN ticker "omits" details now and then; Bloomberg omits negatives and inserts negatives to the point that second source clarification is an absolute necessity for any interesting news item; none of them are worth turning the sound up --- tickers only. Networks? All commentary all the time.

 

[Tobias Funke]

? Wouldn't know --- the Fox ticker comes through with some hysterically funny typos from their interns, but otherwise correct; the CNN ticker "omits" details now and then; Bloomberg omits negatives and inserts negatives to the point that second source clarification is an absolute necessity for any interesting news item; none of them are worth turning the sound up --- tickers only. Networks? All commentary all the time.

Sure, I never said other networks are perfect, but that's not really the point. I just have no idea how this thread morphed into what it did.

Also, I'm generally a d-bag (tone-wise) when I post, but I should have separated Vanadium's comment instead of taking a jab at it within my post. I didn't have much of a problem with it except that I think it needs about 8 additional clauses: to what extent is a voice silenced? by whom, PF or the government? for merely disagreeing, or for being deceptive? Is the statement even true? Is Germany really losing the battle of ideas to neo-Nazis? Are physicists losing the battle of ideas to relativity deniers? Obviously, it's not so simple.

 

[bballwaterboy]

Wow, the guy makes a parenthetical remark and all of a sudden he supports a totalitarian regime that wants to brutally suppress free speech! It's more likely that he (I think that's a safe bet based on the name) means that Fox News willfully lies and distorts facts, which certainly approaches---or should---the limits of what is covered under free speech. It's also likely that he doesn't actually want Fox News taken down by "brute physical force." Talk about an overreaction. I'd even call it idiotic, but ironically that might get this comment deleted, making me the winner of this war of ideas.

Hahaha. Yeah, it was just an expression. I mean, I do find Fox to be blatantly biased towards a certain type of right-wing, conservatism and I find them very annoying, but I guess they have a right to do their own style of news. It's just so obviously biased that I don't like watching it. Sean Hannity, for example, is one of the worst, in my humble opinion.

But moving past Fox, I just meant to ask if there were some "not so blatantly and intentionally biased" news sources for politics? Sort of like:

a.) What are the facts?
b.) What we might expect?
c.) What/why some things are important?

Not:

"He's destroying America with his crazy liberal policies and is the worst President since ______ on this issue."

I dislike opinions (some hyperbole above, of course, although not too far off from Hannity's commentary) like this and just want the facts (all of them - not like let's leave out stuff that doesn't support our personal positions) with maybe some slight background information and highlighting of why something might be important. I'll form my own opinions afterwards.

That's what I was asking. Are there news sources like this?

 

[Bystander]

a.) What are the facts?
b.) What we might expect?
c.) What/why some things are important?

I'll form my own opinions afterwards.

These are mutually exclusive activities as far as understanding politics and foreign affairs. Politicians and diplomats are liars, cheats, con-men, and thieves --- by necessity, given the people with whom they have to deal. You are asking us to name "dependable sources" for you to use in deceiving yourself. I have no idea what particular frauds you wish to perpetrate upon yourself --- I've more than enough difficulty with my own.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, the guy makes a parenthetical remark and all of a sudden he supports a totalitarian regime that wants to brutally suppress free speech! It's more likely that he (I think that's a safe bet based on the name) means that Fox News willfully lies and distorts facts, which certainly approaches---or should---the limits of what is covered under free speech. It's also likely that he doesn't actually want Fox News taken down by "brute physical force." Talk about an overreaction. I'd even call it idiotic, but ironically that might get this comment deleted, making me the winner of this war of ideas.

Well:
1. I don't think I've ever heard a conservative suggest MSNBC be shut down, but I hear a lot that Fox should be. I've also heard of several (mostly on campus) cases of suppression of conservative ideas. Make of that what you will.

2. Your post (and his) imply a misunderstanding of freedom of speech. Except for slander/libel or illegal disclosures from sources, there are no limits/requirements for accuracy. No matter how much you think Fox lies, that does not present a freedom of speech issue.

3. Again, V50 pointed out that the news and commentary from Fox differ greatly. Most criticisms are of the commentary and I'm not sure those doing the criticizing recognize the difference.

 

[russ_watters]

These are mutually exclusive activities as far as understanding politics and foreign affairs. Politicians and diplomats are liars, cheats, con-men, and thieves --- by necessity, given the people with whom they have to deal.

I'll put a finer point on it: The biggest reason people should be choosing sources from both sides is story selection. Because politicians lie and bias is a lot of what determines whether you believe them, people (and news sources) can have very different reactions to the same speech. The result, for example, is that people who follow liberal news sources were probably surprised that the Hillary email scandal blew up recently because you probably thought it was long dead. But those who follow conservative sources saw it coming because we've been following it continuously. Why? Because you (your sources) believed Hillary and we (our sources) didn't.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it is important to get different experiences and sift through the evidence/news.

I more or less gave up on the mainstream news around the late 70s or early 80s. I had hopes for CNN at one time, but they lost me in the mid 80s.

I listen to NPR and did listen to Monitor radio, when they broadcasted. I read the CS Monitor occasionally.

PBS Newshour is fairly decent, as is the BBC.

I read the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and other newspapers from the US and overseas, and read articles by the AP, AFP, and others sources.

 

[lisab]

I think it is important to get different experiences and sift through the evidence/news.

I more or less gave up on the mainstream news around the late 70s or early 80s. I had hopes for CNN at one time, but they lost me in the mid 80s.

I listen to NPR and did listen to Monitor radio, when they broadcasted. I read the CS Monitor occasionally.

PBS Newshour is fairly decent, as is the BBC.

I read the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and other newspapers from the US and overseas, and read articles by the AP, AFP, and others sources.

Thanks, Astro, I somehow forgot about the CS Monitor. I used to read it regularly but somehow it got out of my rotation. I'll be visiting it regularly again !

 

[Hornbein]

All mainstream sources of news are biased. They reflect the views of the owner and sponsors.

There are non-mainstream sources I consider to be unbiased, but discussion of such is forbidden here, popular though they may be.

 

[Tosh5457]

Well, biased sources might tell you what unbiased sources don't, because of their motivation to investigate the matter further, even if only to get their way, so mix biased sources and form your own opinion. That or just search for the topic you want to know more about in the web that you'll find information in a much more detailed and unbiased fashion than in mainstream media.

 

[Astronuc]

Those interested in the media and politics might find Pew Research of interest.
http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/news-media-trends/

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/