General Question

limeaide's avatar

What is the most unbiased, non-sensationalized news organizations?

Asked by limeaide (1902 points ) August 18th, 2009

Tired of the all the propaganda, sensationalism and bias. What is the best source or sources to get real news?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

37 Answers

Quagmire's avatar

Good question! I’ll be following!

dpworkin's avatar

It used to be, oddly, that the Christian Science Monitor was reliably neutral. I’m not sure what happened to that. Now I like the BBC, except when they report from areas where Great Britain has skin in the game.

shrubbery's avatar

In Australia, out of the few that I know, I’d probably have to say SBS.

teh_kvlt_liberal's avatar

Fox News
Just kidding

ragingloli's avatar

I vote for the BBC and ARD.

limeaide's avatar

@shrubbery You know when I proposed the question I was thinking about US media but I’m glad I left the question somewhat open to interpretation. I think we’ll get a lot more good resources this way.

@teh_kvlt_liberal lol!

Sub question: how do you think NPR ranks using the questions criteria?

PapaLeo's avatar

Business news is unequivocally the Wall Street Journal.

Just stay away from their editorial pages – they reek of knee-jerk conservativism.

Quagmire's avatar

“The View” (j/k)

cwilbur's avatar

I’ll second the BBC and the Christian Science Monitor.

NPR tends to not be sensationalist, and has a decided liberal slant, but they tend to cover the sides of stories they disagree with more factually than more sensationalist sources like Fox News.

PapaLeo's avatar

I’m listening to NPR for the first time in years, now that I’ve discovered NPR.org. Even though their reputation is as a liberal stalwart, I’ve been surprised at how balanced their coverage is. For example, they had a segment on a week ago or so about Iraq, and they interviewed former ambassador John Bolton, of all people. And completely straight-faced, without a hint of sarcasm or criticism.

dpworkin's avatar

NPR does have a history of having been “Liberal”, (read basically neutral) but it is no longer. The Bush administration politicized the hell out of it.

noodle_poodle's avatar

its too hard to tell… they say the bbc is is impartial but youd have to know both sides of what really happens to be able to accurately judge and i expect impartiality varies in accordance with different new stories…my vote its to treat everything with consideration

jlm11f's avatar

I like BBC and Raw Story . BBC for being non biased, and Raw Story for giving you important/interesting news that none of the other media outlets will inform you of for whatever political reason.

tedibear's avatar

This is a great question. Lurking lurking lurking…

janbb's avatar

I’m pretty happy with NPR; I guess I like my news with a liberal slant, but they certainly are not sensationalist or rabid. I don’t think there is truly impartial unbiased news but they do try to prsent a variety of viewpoints. If you are in the WNYC area, Brian Lehrer and Leonard Lopate are two midday programs that discuss political and cultural news and both are excellent interviewers.

limeaide's avatar

@tedibear39 Thanks, are you the one that clicked great question?

marinelife's avatar

I really like NPR. I also like the BBC. I also think a great source of news and a great revealer of news bias on both sides is The Daily Show.

SuperMouse's avatar

@Marina, lurve for taking the words right out of my mouth! I only get my news from NPR and BBC. I am also a huge fan of The Daily Show, everyone regardless of their party affiliation, is fair game for Stewart and his writers.

CMaz's avatar

There are none.

kevbo's avatar

I also like the truthiness of Raw Story.

A cousin of mine who is a regulatory law attorney and follows FCC issues sent out some of his thoughts last year during the campaign season with the conclusion that The Daily Show is the best MSM cure for false balance.

Of interest, too, are the right-bias factors he cites for NPR and PBS.

(As far as least sensationalized it has to be The Snoozehour with Jim Lerher.)

Here’s excerpts of my cousin’s comments (he’s a longwinded guy and an Obama supporter):

This issue is something that I’ve felt very strongly about for the last seven or so years as I’ve watched the FCC allow massive corporate media consolidation… I’ve seen the same journalistic fraud perpetrated on a wide variety of subjects, including many that have nothing to do with politics.  For example, I’ve seen a lot of grossly erroneous reporting on telecom and electric issues, sometimes due to a lack of time or care by a reporter, but sometimes due to the reporter spending much of his/her time with readily available supposed experts who are paid by the entity that the reporter is supposedly investigating. That reporter then believes that a “balanced” story is one that purports to consider all sides but then gives far greater weight to the often-one-sided views of the supposed expert, or splits it “down the middle” even when wholly unjustified…

Note that my expertise on this subject is as a regulatory law practitioner who has watched the FCC (and President and Congress) fall under the control of the large media and telecom companies that are among the biggest campaign contributors;  I’m not an expert in journalism or radio/TV arts or psychology.

What are some of the results of the media consolidation and political connections?
 
… Though NPR and PBS are not as biased as Fox, they have had far more Republican/right than Democratic/left commentators in the years since President Bush replaced the formerly non-partisan CPB Board members with political hacks such as Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who ultimately resigned in disgrace after allegedly repeatedly violating the Public Broadcasting Act and the CPB’s guidelines.

… Surprisingly, NPR’s ombudsman was allowed to report on the balance point (he counted 239 R/right to 141 D/left commentators back in 2005) [It’s gotten even more unbalanced since then].

… So what’s the point again? False balance and pervasive media bias result in “news” stories far different from reality and from what people believe after a direct, hands-on experience.

So, what’s the solution? The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Indecision 2008.
  
Why? Despite being a brief comedy show, The Daily Show presents more relevant news and actual statements by relevant newsmakers. It’s far from complete… but you’ll still probably get a more detailed and objective news analysis than you would from the mainstream media.

Here’s one good example.

tedibear's avatar

@limeaide – it wasn’t me, but I should have! And I will in moment!

filmfann's avatar

My vote is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Yes, they have a liberal slant, but they make fun of everyone, including other news sources.

ABoyNamedBoobs03's avatar

To be Honest Jon Stewart grills guests every once in a while, it’s kind of refreshing. Anyone remember when he went on Crossfire?

jfos's avatar

(CNN + Al Jazeera) ÷ 2…

Joking, but yes BBC is mostly neutral.

lefteh's avatar

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 His appearance on Crossfire legitimized him as a force to be reckoned with, in my mind. His grilling of Jim Cramer earlier this year was also great.

marinelife's avatar

@kevbo Bravo for truthiness! That’s a Stephen Colbert coinage, is it not?

lefteh's avatar

Yes, yes it sure is. From his debut show.

FrogOnFire's avatar

I would agree wiht @teh_kvlt_liberal, it’s definitely Fox News.

But seriously, a news source being unbisaed and non-sensationalized? I don’t think one exists in our society today.

lefteh's avatar

I like Politico for my political news. It is pretty straight-forward reporting. Barack Obama did this, then Barack Obama did that. Not Barack Obama did this, so he is Satan, and Barack Obama did that, so he is our Messiah.

Too many news organizations today provide both the premise and the conclusion; Politico sticks to the premise.

kevbo's avatar

Tip of the hat to @Marina!

wundayatta's avatar

The Nation. Mother Jones. Otherwise, it’s mostly corporate sponsored or government sponsored pseudo-news.

fundevogel's avatar

I like to listen to the Young Turks, but they’re fairly liberal. And it’s more commentary than news. Media Matters is pretty good at catching right wing journalism when their facts get twisted or their more disturbing biases start showing.

Other than that its NPR for me, but they’ve already gotten a lot of love.

Ivan's avatar

My take on NPR: Their employees and broadcasters probably lean a little left, but they do a better job than anyone at presenting both sides of an issue.

It’s kind of sad that Jon Stewart is arguably the only journalist willing to take people head on and call them on their bullshit.

Zuma's avatar

BBC and Worldfocus on PBS.

filmfann's avatar

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Naked News.

ddweller151's avatar

The only source I can find that remains unbiased and non-sensationalized is Voice of America. It has worldwide coverage of “just the facts” news and RSS feeds at http://www.voanews.com/

Don

limeaide's avatar

@ddweller151 Thanks, I’ll check it out!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther