Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Aug 12, 2015 #1
    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!!!)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2015 #2

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Aug 12, 2015 #3

    DEvens

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Aug 12, 2015 #4
    Out of English language media I like The Economist. Well thought articles, ideologically rather neutral with pragmatic pro business bent.

    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.)
     
  6. Aug 12, 2015 #5

    DEvens

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Aug 12, 2015 #6
    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

    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)

    Sure, but you are trying to move its methodology in to area where it does not work so well.
     
  8. Aug 12, 2015 #7

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

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

    If you want to shut down Fox News, then ABCBSCNNMSNBC gotta 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, moreso 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?
     
  9. Aug 12, 2015 #8
    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)
     
  10. Aug 12, 2015 #9

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  11. Aug 12, 2015 #10

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  12. Aug 12, 2015 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    American Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden, 1939
    American+Nazi+organization+rally+at+Madison+Square+Garden,+1939.jpg
     
  13. Aug 12, 2015 #12

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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
     
  14. Aug 12, 2015 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Aug 12, 2015 #14

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  16. Aug 12, 2015 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  17. Aug 12, 2015 #16

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  18. Aug 12, 2015 #17

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Hopefully, no one here is unaware that they are ALL selling something. Caveat emptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke
     
  19. Aug 12, 2015 #18

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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)
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2015
  20. Aug 12, 2015 #19
    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.
     
  21. Aug 12, 2015 #20

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    ???? 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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Any Popular, Non-Biased, and Reputable Sources of Politics?
Loading...