Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    29 Jun '18 22:512 edits
    What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?

    The BBC is good, but has been severely criticized for pro-Israeli bias. They was a massive protest a few years ago resulting in police being needed to escort BBC employees outside of it's headquarters. The BBC soon after, released a series of segments aimed at addressing their bias, and have made attempts to fix it. Whether or not they've truly remedied their bias, I don't know.

    WashPo is good, but owned by someone Trump has had conflicts with. For an organization with their kind of rep, I think they cover Trump a little too obsessively. To their credit, Washing Post has published opinion pieces from conservatives with pro-Trump bias.

    HuffPost? I always feel like every single article is an opinion piece. Their pro-Israeli bias is especially obvious.

    I've been obsessed with Al Jazeera for some time now. While I'm tempted to rank them as the best, they are still owned by the Qatari government, and there may some stories related to Qatar that must be taken with a grain of salt, like the blockade. They have one article that's uncharacteristically partisan, understandably, related to it.

    So....what's can we call the most reliable news source?

    EDIT: I really didn't start this thread to blast news sources, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
  2. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22076
    29 Jun '18 23:05
    Originally posted by @vivify
    What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?

    The BBC is good, but has been severely criticized for pro-Israeli bias. They was a massive protest a few years ago resulting in police being needed to escort BBC employees outside of it's headquarters. The BBC soon after, released a series of segments aimed at addressing their bias, an ...[text shortened]... es, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
    I take the stock market approach to my news consumption: I diversify my portfolio.

    With all sources considered...I believe somewhere therein, the truth does reveal itself.

    I pretend that FOX News is just satire. Sort of like a right-wing version of The Onion. Then it's so much easier to digest without purging.
  3. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    29 Jun '18 23:52
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    I take the stock market approach to my news consumption: I diversify my portfolio.

    Couldn't agree more.
    BBC is my first port of call but I like to get a second opinion.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    30 Jun '18 00:07
    Originally posted by @vivify
    What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?

    The BBC is good, but has been severely criticized for pro-Israeli bias. They was a massive protest a few years ago resulting in police being needed to escort BBC employees outside of it's headquarters. The BBC soon after, released a series of segments aimed at addressing their bias, an ...[text shortened]... es, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
    all of them. none of them.

    You need to watch them all. Sift through the information. Decide what is meant to inform and what is meant to deceive. One might give you half the information, the other might give you the other half. One might give you a different perspective, to challenge your opinions, make you think and readjusts. Decide what is fact supported by evidence and what are talking points meant to further someone's agenda.


    It's a lot of work but it's the only way to stay informed. Expecting to be spoon fed information through just one source is to become complacent and be susceptible to manipulation.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    30 Jun '18 00:14
    Zahlanzi and Wolf: excellent points.
  6. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    30 Jun '18 01:12
    Originally posted by @vivify
    What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?

    The BBC is good, but has been severely criticized for pro-Israeli bias. They was a massive protest a few years ago resulting in police being needed to escort BBC employees outside of it's headquarters. The BBC soon after, released a series of segments aimed at addressing their bias, an ...[text shortened]... es, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
    New York Times
    Washington Post
    Boston Globe
    Associated Press
    Reuters
    The Guardian
    Atlantic (magazine)
    NBC
    CBS
  7. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    30 Jun '18 01:351 edit
    Originally posted by @vivify
    I really didn't start this thread to blast news sources, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
    Fox News serves one useful purpose. It tells you what Trump believes, for what it's worth.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 19:433 edits
    Originally posted by @vivify
    What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?

    The BBC is good, but has been severely criticized for pro-Israeli bias. They was a massive protest a few years ago resulting in police being needed to escort BBC employees outside of it's headquarters. The BBC soon after, released a series of segments aimed at addressing their bias, an ...[text shortened]... es, so please, no rants about Fox News or CNN. Let's just focus on worthy news sources, please.
    "What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?"
    --Vivify

    It depends upon the subject. I don't know of any single news source that's best about EVERY subject.
    If one really cares. then one does not rely upon only 'one stop shopping' for news.
    One reads diverse news sources or one reads relevant scholarly literature.

    I would add that many Western publications tend to be weaker when covering some
    'exotic' non-Western subjects because they don't seem to employ enough people who
    are very familiar with such non-Western languages and cultures. I can recall reading
    nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese) after she misunderstood a
    Chinese idiom and jumped to absurd conclusions about Chinese people and culture in general.
    If a popularity contest were held among her ignorant readers, most of them presumably
    would vote to accept her unwarranted conclusions and consider themselves 'informed'.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    30 Jun '18 20:00
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    all of them. none of them.

    You need to watch them all. Sift through the information. Decide what is meant to inform and what is meant to deceive. One might give you half the information, the other might give you the other half. One might give you a different perspective, to challenge your opinions, make you think and readjusts. Decide what is fact supp ...[text shortened]... information through just one source is to become complacent and be susceptible to manipulation.
    It becomes obvious what the biases are when you watch multiple sources.
    I listen to short wave radio besides the usual TV sources, Radio Netherlands I like, even Radio Havana. What is hard to take on the sw bands are the proliferation of jesus freak stations, very little in English from the US besides JC freaks. It's sad really. Voice of America has all but shut down but you still get South Africa radio, Radio Moscow, Israel radio, Australia.
  10. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1398
    30 Jun '18 20:13
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "What is the best, most impartial and factually accurate news source?"
    --Vivify

    It depends upon the subject. I don't know of any single news source that's best about EVERY subject.
    If one really cares. then one does not rely upon only 'one stop shopping' for news.
    One reads diverse news sources or one reads relevant scholarly literature.

    I woul ...[text shortened]... presumably
    would vote to accept her unwarranted conclusions and consider themselves 'informed'.
    I would add that many Western publications tend to be weaker when covering some
    'exotic' non-Western subjects because they don't seem to employ enough people who
    are very familiar with such non-Western languages and cultures. I can recall reading
    nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese) after she misunderstood a Chinese idiom and jumped to absurd conclusions about Chinese people and culture in general.



    Now that Duchess has given us another beloved reminder of the basic stupidity of white people as well as most of the western world, below is a publication that I've heard few complaints about from anyone (Note to Duchess: These folks do employ people who speak non western languages when doing interviews and research in non western countries) It's an older publication, but might be worth checking out.

    https://www.usnews.com/
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 20:331 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I would add that many Western publications tend to be weaker when covering some
    'exotic' non-Western subjects because they don't seem to employ enough people who
    are very familiar with such non-Western languages and cultures. I can recall reading
    nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese) after she misunderstood a Chinese idiom and ju ...[text shortened]... ntries) It's an older publication, but might be worth checking out.

    https://www.usnews.com/
    "Now that Duchess has given us another beloved reminder of the basic stupidity of
    white people as well as most of the western world."
    --Mchill

    Another typically misleading distortion by Mchill of what I wrote.
    I wrote nothing about "the basic stupidity of white people".

    All that I wrote is that an American journalist (whom I did NO mention is white, though she is)
    misunderstood something in Chinese and jumped to absurd conclusions about Chinese.
    Then most of her readers presumably would accept what she wrote.

    It means only that
    1) The journalist's ignorant and arrogantly careless in not having her assumed understanding of Chinese checked.
    2) Most of the readers presumably would be too naive and trusting of this journalist.

    So it's about the ignorance and arrogant carelessness of an American journalist and
    the presumed gullibility of most of her readers, NOT 'the basic stupidity of white people' (to quote Mchill).
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    30 Jun '18 21:35
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I would add that many Western publications tend to be weaker when covering some
    'exotic' non-Western subjects because they don't seem to employ enough people who
    are very familiar with such non-Western languages and cultures. I can recall reading
    nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese) after she misunderstood a Chinese idiom and ju ...[text shortened]... ntries) It's an older publication, but might be worth checking out.

    https://www.usnews.com/
    Where did you read in D64's post it was an attack on white people? I didn't see a mention of the color of skin of the reporter so you are once more just jumping to a contusion.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 21:452 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse to Mchill
    Where did you read in D64's post it was an attack on white people? I didn't see a
    mention of the color of skin of the reporter so you are once more just jumping to a contusion.
    Like many trolls, Mchill has a long record of falsely accusing me of attacking or hating all white people.

    "I can recall reading nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese)..."
    --Duchess64

    Mchill apparently presumed that 'American' must be synonymous with 'white'.
    In fact, there are many non-white American journalists who don't speak Chinese.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    30 Jun '18 22:01
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Mchill has a long record of falsely accusing me of attacking or hating all white people.

    "I can recall reading nonsense by an American journalist (who did not speak Chinese)..."
    --Duchess64

    Mchill apparently presumed that 'American' must be synonymous with 'white'.
    In fact, there are many non-white American journalists who don't speak Chinese.
    I don't believe it๐Ÿ™‚ Non-white journalists? Who would have known.....
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '18 22:401 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I don't believe it๐Ÿ™‚ Non-white journalists? Who would have known.....
    Some arrogant racist or sexist men apparently believe that no one who's not a white man
    can ever write or think of anything original. These white men like to act as though
    white men alone must be responsible for everything good that humankind can do.

    "Thanks for the Copy and Pasted history lecture from Wikipedia Duchess. ...
    But seriously, at least Marauder wrote his using his own words."
    --Wolfe63 (in the thread "Death, Succession, and Consequences" )

    The troll Wolfe63 (who has a long record of abusing me) has falsely accused me of
    plagiarism without being able to cite any evidence (specific articles or passages) that I
    "Copy and Pasted" my comments on history from Wikipedia in the thread "Death,
    Succession, and Consequences." I suspect the troll Wolfe63 will keep lying about it.

    When I quote Wikipedia, I take care to attribute it to Wikipedia, sometimes including a link.
Back to Top