It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Is there even actual news anymore (or has there ever been)?
Lately when just trying to keep up with current events of any kind, It's so hard to find news that isn't slanted with opinion in one way or another. Idk just seems like everything has an agenda and I wish it didn't. Thoughts?
Things happen in the world. Journalism is about telling you what happened. How can events be bias? The consequences of that event can be interpreted.
Opinions are bias takes on those events.
Nah not really. Pretty much everything has bias but the more information you consume from multiple sources you start to see through it. If you want real truth you have to look for it.
BBC, Reuters, AP, ProPublica etc. are all pretty solid. Al Jazeera isn't bad either but recognize it's funded by Qatar which can slant certain positions (i.e. coverage of human rights violations, etc.). I really like ProPublica but they tend to cover more liberal topics but aren't afraid to go after both sides of the aisle.
NYT, WSJ, WaPo etc. are going to be more "biased" than the above but they'll still have some pretty good pieces. Avoid their opinion columns however. The vast majority of them are trash.
The networks like ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are OK for US-based issues but again are going to slant more towards opinion than fact-based pieces. However, they will have good pieces here and there.
Then you get places like HuffingtonPost, Buzzfeed, Fox, etc. which will have a lot of biased pieces BUT will on occasion put out valuable pieces. For all the crap Buzzfeed gets, they have some investigative journalists who work with places like Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, on FOIA-based pieces which are incredible.
Basically, you're going to have to consume pieces from all sides to get an accurate picture. I personally avoid all television news and focus on paper-based coverage. It's much easier to fact-check on your own when you're sitting at a desk or on your computer and question things.
**This post was edited on Nov 6th 2019 at 10:09:00am
Reuters is usually pretty good. Typically if im looking into something I will pick a new source with a strong bias one way, then one with a strong bias the other way then a neutral one and between the 3 you can kind of piece together what actually is going on.
freestyler540Things happen in the world. Journalism is about telling you what happened. How can events be bias? The consequences of that event can be interpreted.
Opinions are bias takes on those events.
Haha dude obviously events are going to be televised/shown by outlets, but what I think OP is talking about is just ordinary, day-to-day shit that the news puts on the airwaves.
You can't watch news on cable networks anymore, which is a shame. It sounds counterintuitive but YouTube is a good place for journalism, provided you don't go down the black hole of conspiracy theories (although lighting a blunt and going down that hole can be fun). I suggest this news channel Subverse, ran by Tim Pool.
News is getting rediculous. It's easy to filter through the bullshit and idnore the biasness, however articles are definitely targeted for viewership as they always have been. That's what gets me the most. Whenever there is a shooting, it's on every news channel, 5 articles per paper each day for a week.
The AP and Reuters and BBC are probably the best I've seen for reporting just the news. Local networks too but their editing is absolute shit.
both sides of the political spectrum are whack. the cable news networks are just trying to rile people up and push them further to either side. read history/current event books and read magazines/newspapers with opposing views, you can paint your own picture and draw your own conclusions
There is no news outlet that exists anymore without some sort of bias or agenda. Personally, I think all major news outlets should be burned to the ground.
With that being said, no news outlet is so good that they will tell you the whole narrative of a story. But no news outlet is so bad that they won't tell you part of a narrative. To get the whole narrative, you have to read news from multiple sources from the left, right, and "center".
A good place to go to achieve this is through Ground News. They're a news aggregator who will rate the bias distribution of a story from a bunch of different news outlets. Then they provide links to read those articles.
You need to read multiple sources. Don't live in an echo chamber.
I've been lopking to various local networks for news lately. They tend to not follow the bias of their national brands as bad. Also report from where things happen and not a studio a thousand miles away. When things hit the fan this summer looking at different local outlets from around the country gave a very different picture of events than any national outlet.
read from both sides and find the common details to get what actually happened and be able to understand what people on the other side of the spectrum are thinking, even if you might not personally support it. understanding their point of view is the first step to having actual intellectual political debates instead of "he said something I didn't like so I hate him"
r00kieI've been lopking to various local networks for news lately. They tend to not follow the bias of their national brands as bad. Also report from where things happen and not a studio a thousand miles away. When things hit the fan this summer looking at different local outlets from around the country gave a very different picture of events than any national outlet.
I blame the removal of the fairness doctrine. There used to be a law that media outlets had to show both sides of a political argument. It was removed in 1987. It's largely credited with media bias and party polarization.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
- Wikipedia (The best source. fuck you high school teachers)
BrandoComandoI blame the removal of the fairness doctrine. There used to be a law that media outlets had to show both sides of a political argument. It was removed in 1987. It's largely credited with media bias and party polarization.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
- Wikipedia (The best source. fuck you high school teachers)
The fairness doctrine being eliminated didn't make media organizations take a deceptive and malicious approach to news and information dissemination, they've done that on their own for profit and their own devious political agendas.
The blame lies at the feet of news owners, execs, and fake journalists. They could have done the right thing and continued to show fair and balanced view points by reporting facts and diving into nuances but instead they all flushed their honor and integrity down the toilet for clicks and a paycheck.
The media industrial complex in the US is engaged in asymmetric warfare against the common person that borders on foreign state-sponsored terrorism if you take into account China and their current level of funding and influence.
Yes. Either watch a few of his shows and see how many of your fact checks catch tucker in a lie. You will find it happens about once for every 1000 times you hear a lie from cucknn and msnbcuck.
the righteousness of the left doesnt come from defending facts or defending reality. They get their righteousness bc they think the robinhoods will always be righteous and the person who gets rich by selling you chemo to save your childs life will always be evil.
If you follow the facts you will see that the most wealth and happyness will come to an “atlas shrugged” type civilization where people learn to not bite the hand that feeds them.
And to be fair, an atlas shrugged civilization will be better able to help the needy than some metastatically central planned socialist regime ever could.
efficiency is a friend to everybody, both rich and poor, and if you disagree, you probably look like this \/
I just stopped watching news or even tv in general and realized my quality of life increased exponentially. The more stressed out you get over shit you can’t control/doesn’t effect you, the more those fuckers profit. Most current events end up on Instagram or Twitter anyways but without all the sensationalized bullshit. Fox is full of kooks, CNN is full of kooks, Trump is a kook, Biden’s a kook, they’re all fucking kooks. When you turn the TV off and just go skiing, you realize how little if any effect that stuff has on your life at all.
JAHpowThere is no news outlet that exists anymore without some sort of bias or agenda. Personally, I think all major news outlets should be burned to the ground.
With that being said, no news outlet is so good that they will tell you the whole narrative of a story. But no news outlet is so bad that they won't tell you part of a narrative. To get the whole narrative, you have to read news from multiple sources from the left, right, and "center".
A good place to go to achieve this is through Ground News. They're a news aggregator who will rate the bias distribution of a story from a bunch of different news outlets. Then they provide links to read those articles.
You need to read multiple sources. Don't live in an echo chamber.
I wouldn't go so far to say major outlets should be burned to the ground lol. Obviously the major right (Fox) and major left (CNN) are heavily biased-I won't even begin to discuss radical right "news" outlets cuz they're not news. I agree to always read articles from both sides. If they cite something, follow the source; it's hilarious when news channels cite some breakthrough study but when I go to the source it's a poorly designed study that I'd rip apart. If you read a potentially charged article, Google it and check an alternative network's article on it. If it reads like opinion, search for another article that is just facts.
Anyway had on Fox the other day cuz my cable had like 5 channels and fuck me they are worse than CNN at times. Like report the fucking news. When tf did fox get so bad at just news... Sure if you wanna have interviews with extremely biased individuals, great, get both sides on the screen. But the anchors need to stay neutral, and I think Fox particularly does the worst job of staying anchor neutral. I guess the White House wanted (or may have already) to declare a public health crisis on "gun violence" so the anchor and commentators were somehow making the connection that means they're going to take your guns away-literally come to the houses of millions of Americans and take their semiauto rifles. Jesus calm down. There is an epidemic of gun violence but it's not with legal gun owners. I highly doubt any gun control bill restricting semiauto rifles will ever make it through the senate. There's a dem senator from WV who will never be on board. Also way too many moderates from gun friendly states to revert to Clinton era restrictions. And worst case if something does pass restricting new sales, it will be reverted eventually.
CNN second worst.
Personally I try to stick to Reuters, BBC, AP, and then my daily is USA TODAY cuz I grew up reading their paper and it's usually pretty good. USA today is getting more biased and full of ads but they also do a good job of providing counter opinions if they have an editorial.
Dude Tucker is garbo what drugs r u on? He can't even look at the camera without conveying an opinion. He's not a news anchor, he's a TV host.
DolansLebensraumTo answer your question,
Yes. Either watch a few of his shows and see how many of your fact checks catch tucker in a lie. You will find it happens about once for every 1000 times you hear a lie from cucknn and msnbcuck.
the righteousness of the left doesnt come from defending facts or defending reality. They get their righteousness bc they think the robinhoods will always be righteous and the person who gets rich by selling you chemo to save your childs life will always be evil.
If you follow the facts you will see that the most wealth and happyness will come to an “atlas shrugged” type civilization where people learn to not bite the hand that feeds them.
And to be fair, an atlas shrugged civilization will be better able to help the needy than some metastatically central planned socialist regime ever could.
efficiency is a friend to everybody, both rich and poor, and if you disagree, you probably look like this \/
HypeBeastI wouldn't go so far to say major outlets should be burned to the ground lol. Obviously the major right (Fox) and major left (CNN) are heavily biased-I won't even begin to discuss radical right "news" outlets cuz they're not news. I agree to always read articles from both sides. If they cite something, follow the source; it's hilarious when news channels cite some breakthrough study but when I go to the source it's a poorly designed study that I'd rip apart. If you read a potentially charged article, Google it and check an alternative network's article on it. If it reads like opinion, search for another article that is just facts.
Anyway had on Fox the other day cuz my cable had like 5 channels and fuck me they are worse than CNN at times. Like report the fucking news. When tf did fox get so bad at just news... Sure if you wanna have interviews with extremely biased individuals, great, get both sides on the screen. But the anchors need to stay neutral, and I think Fox particularly does the worst job of staying anchor neutral. I guess the White House wanted (or may have already) to declare a public health crisis on "gun violence" so the anchor and commentators were somehow making the connection that means they're going to take your guns away-literally come to the houses of millions of Americans and take their semiauto rifles. Jesus calm down. There is an epidemic of gun violence but it's not with legal gun owners. I highly doubt any gun control bill restricting semiauto rifles will ever make it through the senate. There's a dem senator from WV who will never be on board. Also way too many moderates from gun friendly states to revert to Clinton era restrictions. And worst case if something does pass restricting new sales, it will be reverted eventually.
CNN second worst.
Personally I try to stick to Reuters, BBC, AP, and then my daily is USA TODAY cuz I grew up reading their paper and it's usually pretty good. USA today is getting more biased and full of ads but they also do a good job of providing counter opinions if they have an editorial.
Tldr: I like news
Every major news outlet should be razed to the ground and everyone of their news anchors and journalists should be fired and not allowed to work in news anymore. Also, the Washington Press Secretary should a person nominated by the other party, not the president.
JAHpowBut no news outlet is so bad that they won't tell you part of a narrative.
Also, I take this back. Left wing news organizations refuse to report on the destruction, terroristic acts, and murder done by antifa across the country over the past 8 months. Billions of dollars in property damage, entire businesses destroyed, entire government buildings destroyed, dozens killed, 1000 arrested. But you won't hear a peep about it from a major news outlet.
