Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
I can't. I'm either too stupid, unaware, or there ain't one.
Give A Good Example Of An Objective News Source
- Thread starter Little Red Wagon Repairman
- Start date
Most of the old school are: Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, San Jose Mercury News, Etc.
CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. The problem is they tend to report things in a binary terms, (Yes, no, left, right, good, bad) when life is really shades & levels of grey. Politics can't be accurately reduced to a one dimensional line. Science deals in proven facts and should not be balanced against ignorant deniers, as if each were equal.
CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. The problem is they tend to report things in a binary terms, (Yes, no, left, right, good, bad) when life is really shades & levels of grey. Politics can't be accurately reduced to a one dimensional line. Science deals in proven facts and should not be balanced against ignorant deniers, as if each were equal.
I don't think there is 100% objective news sources. Except maybe the agency dispatches (from Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, etc...) since they only report the fact. But I'm not even sure they are 100% objective since some are controled by governments (ex : Xinhua is controled by the chinese government) and others are controled by corporations.
I think the best thing to do is to get multiple sources of informations, with different biases and then make your own opinion about an issue by reading different articles with different biases about it.
I think the best thing to do is to get multiple sources of informations, with different biases and then make your own opinion about an issue by reading different articles with different biases about it.
here we're facing a problem : what should be done when a majority of people think in a way and a small minority think the othert way. Should both opinions be granted the same airtime or should the opinion that is most shared be granted more airtime than the one who's less shared ?
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
I don't think humans can be 100% objective. Imperfect beings always lean one way or the other even if it's slight. You can think you call it down the middle or tell it like it is but you are wired to filter information many times the way you want to receive it.
Given the right set of circumstances, I believe it's possible...just not likely.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Any study of journalism will teach you exactly that. Even the wire services are reported and written by human beings and slight bias can always be found.
Supafly
Retired Mod
We are in philosophic territory. I find this very enlightening, and one of the most important topics to begin with for this subforum.
I'd say for EVERY single thread, we would need to go to a "meta-leveö", which means: Don't take sources and discuss their input. If so, you already made a mistake. As you guys already said:
The whole chain of gathering, processing and forwarding information is based on the humans involved, and by the time you read an article, at least two or three people have filtered it and all with the mindset that they have to keep in line of the media owners ground rules. These days, there is the possibility of Internet Bloggers, who do not have such overhead, but they often lack professionalism or are in it for sensationalism.
If you consider what the agenda of the storyteller is, you are as close to objective as you can get.
I'd say for EVERY single thread, we would need to go to a "meta-leveö", which means: Don't take sources and discuss their input. If so, you already made a mistake. As you guys already said:
The whole chain of gathering, processing and forwarding information is based on the humans involved, and by the time you read an article, at least two or three people have filtered it and all with the mindset that they have to keep in line of the media owners ground rules. These days, there is the possibility of Internet Bloggers, who do not have such overhead, but they often lack professionalism or are in it for sensationalism.
If you consider what the agenda of the storyteller is, you are as close to objective as you can get.
NPR.
Despite the House GOP a couple of years ago wanting to defund them calling them bias, they are not bias and tell it like it is with the news.
Despite the House GOP a couple of years ago wanting to defund them calling them bias, they are not bias and tell it like it is with the news.
go to google
click the news tab
about as good as you are going to find. keep in mind who the source is, and read it knowing what from which slant it is coming is about as good as you can do. it is like politics in the united states right now. everything is about perspective, nothing is about reporting or acting for the good of the people.
click the news tab
about as good as you are going to find. keep in mind who the source is, and read it knowing what from which slant it is coming is about as good as you can do. it is like politics in the united states right now. everything is about perspective, nothing is about reporting or acting for the good of the people.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
NPR? You can't be serious.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
The bias also comes about when writers, copy editors, bureau chiefs, etc. have to squeeze stories into space and time. What gets on the first 6 pages or buried. Which stories get killed or never followed up? Plus remember that news sells cars, shampoo, and burghers. Lots of important stuff goes on in our communities and doesn't get it's proper ink. Even those that do report on these stories have to sell to those demographics that are consuming it. Those readers have their biases too.
BlkHawk
Closed Account
This. They also were far more in depth, though I haven't watched it in years, so don't know if they have changed.
bahodeme
Closed Account
No not really. It seems they took McNeil-Lerner hour and expanded it with a few more reporters. I think everything changed when news was put in the same Nielsen rating as entertainment. Once that happened the news had to compete with talk shows, reruns, and entertainment news.
Yes.
"All Things Considered" has had guess politicians on from both sides of the aisle.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
True but so do most other news outlets. It is the way the other side's stories get packaged and presented. Even on All Things Considered there is always the little digs that get speckled through with NPR's left bias.
I always enjoyed Paul Harvey myself, objective news source I don't know, I enjoyed Lloyd Robertson growing up as well. Here is an interesting one from back when.
http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-harvey/2012/03/21/1965-if-i-were-devil-warning-nation-paul-harvey
http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-harvey/2012/03/21/1965-if-i-were-devil-warning-nation-paul-harvey
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
We come up with any objective sources we objectively agree are objective? Even robot reporters would be programmed by humans.
Similar threads
