Is there such a thing as unbiased media and reporting?
 

All this talk about the ultra conservative Fox News and ultra lib NY Times has me wondering if there is a middle ground or do they all lean one way or the other. If anyone knows a completely factual and unbiased source for news, please let us all know.

depends on what news you want to hear the mr. paterno.

That's just my point. You decide, based on your stance, who you'll listen to and believe. So many people here complain about the biased media but, in reality, if we don't like what we see, read or hear, we yell foul and claim bias.

Face it, all this political discussion is nonsense as we'll never ever convince the other side and only accomplishes to raise blood pressure.

Sometimes, I just want to walk away forever from OT but I'm freaking addicted. I wish Wayne would bring back the Grid Girls. I don't mind that causing my bp to rise.

yeah, remember they said it calm down here after the election? my ace!

i recommend watching the daily show. it is very left, too much for you i would imagine, but at least you will laugh your ace off as you are being informed.

My opinion is that neither Fox nor NY Times is particularly biased (if at all) in their news coverage. There is evidence both have exhibited some degree of selectivity in what they cover, or in the headlines, but really it is the editorial stance which governs the left/rightness of them.

The problem comes if people take the opinion part of the news reporting as gospel.

(edit) BBC is pretty good. Most of Foxnews.com's news comes from AP or Reuters, although I've even heard them called liberal :rolleyes:

Aaron Brown, Newsnight, CNN, 10PM weekdays.

Lehrer is also good.

No, pick anyplace in the world, I don't think it exists

I think nearly every bit of news we receive (thru almost all media outlets) is biased as a minimum by the natural and probably mostly unintentional biases and prejudices of the reporter. I think that's just the way it is. Some outlets are much worse than others, though, and project their agenda when they "report" the news.

I think it is everyone's responsibility to filter everything they hear/read/see by their own "reasonableness" filter and make their own informed decision. Unfortunately, our own biases and prejudices also come into play. That's why neocons and tree huggers can read the same article and come to totally different conclusions, though. :>)

Mike

Exactly Mike. best example was all the hoopla leading up to the invasion of Iraq. None of it sounded convincing or genuine, most of it sounded contrived.

It's to this day that I don't understand how anyone bought the go to war with Iraq story. All of the reasons to go to war just never registered as true to me and I frequently wonder why people believed it and continue to believe it.

And yet so many peole did and still do. It would make for great brain research.

Drum roll please... Let the name-calling begin!:D

Edit: I'm w/ IROC on the question at hand though. The biases are there already in the reporter (and the subjects) eyes. The advantage that the reporter/editorial staff has is they get to choose the stories they run, and how much info they will provide on any 'side'.

I think the thing to do is to read several news sources - I like the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Economist, AP/Reuters, etc - and look for the factual things that they agree on and for which there appears to be actual evidence. Screen out the adjectives, modifiers, speculation, statements unaccompanied by hard data, and especially the insinuation, innuendo, and opinion.

I agree w/ Cam that the biggest obstacle to getting a balanced and unbiased view of the news is if you read the Op-Ed pieces and think they are news reporting. They're not - they're partisan arguments. I say that even for the editorial columns that I might tend to agree with. I'm willing to believe the same thing as, say, Paul Krugman - but I want to arrive at the opinion myself, not be led to it by clever writing.

Don't know if anyone has read AJ Liebling, but I loved a collection of his pieces published as "The Press". He was a writer for the New Yorker back in the 40s through early 60s. He had a column in which he took the stories that ran in the New York dailies the previous day, and sifted through all the various papers' versions of a particular story and highlighted what was inconsistent, invented, opinion-pretending-to-be-news, and otherwise junk reporting. Great and instructive reading.

Incidentally, what do people think of the Christian Science Monitor? I've recently read a couple of issues and thought the news pieces seemed pretty decent.

I read that too fast and thought you said "Alton Brown" and thought to myself, hell yeah, that's as unbiased as they come! But... it turns out I just watch too much Food Network.

Peter Jennings is neutral now...

pwd, I think that was a liiiiittle too soon.

IROC has it right here. One of the first things learned in journalism school is that every reporter has an inherent bias. This is only natural, and is based on many things, such as economic status, location, upbringing, and social surroundings.

Armed with this information, the reporter is supposed to be able to filter out his/her inherent bias and present a factual report. There are formulas for this, and the reporter is encouraged to leave out non-essential information and refrain from drawing personal conclusions.

The problem arises when a reporter (or news outlet, in this case) goes into the story with an agenda, whether intentional or not.

Fox makes sure that it's viewers know they are watching "fair and balanced :rolleyes:" reporting, while other sources (NPR comes to mind) slants its news in more subtle ways, and in the opposite direction. This approach is contrary to the intent of news reporting, which is to present the facts.

So, I guess (after a few paragraphs of meaningless drivel), the answer to the question is no. It's probably best to get news from a variety of sources and draw your own conclusions. The facts are in there somewhere.

And if you can't tell the difference between editorializing and reporting, either you or the news source is not doing a very good job. ;)

Jim

No really, it would make for an interesting research study. no name-calling implied.

I have a bio-biochem background and did some research in memory, so this is of real interest to me.

I suppose that's true. After all, we have two Saint Peters now, don't we...

PET scanning is the vogue for now, and it would make for an unpleasant day for the subject if you were trying to get synaptic neurotransmitter levels.

I pretty much just wait for flintone to find me unbiased news.

This was exactly the additional point I wanted to make - that it is imperative to get information from a variety of sources and draw the most informed conclusions you can.

The problem is - that's difficult and requires a significant amount of effort sometimes. That is one of the things that has drawn me to this forum - there are a bunch of sharp people coming to the table with differing viewpoints on the same subject based on all of the factors mentioned above. To me, this forum is like a big, giant "Point/Counterpoint" on a daily basis.

It helps me keep some of my biases and prejudices in check.

Mike