Most Accurate News Source

[ElishaElijah]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your country?

 

[ElishaElijah]

What is your country?

USA

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

USA

Should you trust media bias charts? - Poynter

There are other sources for media bias. As for science, that is not about science. That is politics.

 

[Laika]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

It's not accurate, but if you want a greater variety of news sources you can try scrolling through r/politics and r/conservative on reddit to get an idea what people are sharing and talking about. r/politics appears more left-leaning, so checking out r/conservative occasionally can compensate for that. Alot of it is jokes and memes though, so not great quality wise.

Edit: most of the time, I'll otherwise use the Guardian, but it's very left of centre. (Link to US version).

 

[fantome profane]

USA

Even though you live in the USA you don’t need to limit yourself to US news sources. I recommend checking out the CBC, or the BBC.
You will still get news about what is going on in your country, but less political bias. (and if you don’t believe that, at least a different perspective).

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you want facts, stay in the green rectangle.

https://adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want facts, stay in the green rectangle.

View attachment 57122

https://adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/

Not quite. Stay mainly in the green rectangle and if in doubt check wider.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not quite.

Please expound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please expound.

Now I am in doubt. So I retract. I was just being to much of a skeptic and overdoing it.

 

[F1fan]

NPR and PBS news have a great selection of coverage on radio, TV, podcasts, and on YouTube videos.

The BBC is excellent as well.

The green box media is all ethical and reputable.

 

[F1fan]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on.

There are many people who want their biased sources, so there won't be an agreement. I've been critical of the biased sources of many people and suggest they use more reputable sources, and they dismissed them as liberal. Oddly they are defining ethical and reputable sources as being liberal. That isn't a good sign of what these folks prefer in conservative sources.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There are many people who want their biased sources, so there won't be an agreement. I've been critical of the biased sources of many people and suggest they use more reputable sources, and they dismissed them as liberal. Oddly they are defining ethical and reputable sources as being liberal. That isn't a good sign of what these folks prefer in conservative sources.

Ok maybe we can pick a topic, go through the various news sources and test how they reported. Let’s do Michael Flynn: Which News Source has reported all sides of this story? Or you pick a topic.
I’m having a hard time finding balanced reporting on issues, mostly one sided and incomplete no matter what source you use.

 

[Windwalker]

If you want facts, stay in the green rectangle.

View attachment 57122

https://adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/

I see how very far outside that rectangle Fox "news" is. So sad that's the main news source for a lot of folks who buy whatever lies of the day the politicians wish to feed them.

 

[metis]

According to a PolitiFact study, PBS NewsHour is the most accurate followed by CNN, and the least accurate is Fox followed by MSNBC. It didn't include some of the more recent news-channels however.

However, please note that "accuracy" isn't the same as "bias", as a station could have a strong bias and yet be quite accurate in its reporting.

 

[metis]

I see how very far outside that rectangle Fox "news" is. So sad that's the main news source for a lot of folks who buy whatever lies of the day the politicians wish to feed them.

Yep, as Fox was created by Murdock to reflect "conservative values". Obviously, some at Fox have left and/or said some things against Fox's strong affiliation with Trump.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'd go with the Guardian (somewhat left of centre) and the BBC, but often any scientific (or similar) site where such is involved so as to get a more accurate view of whatever it is. I do look at many others but I then note from where the information comes.

 

[ElishaElijah]

According to a PolitiFact study, PBS NewsHour is the most accurate followed by CNN, and the least accurate is Fox followed by MSNBC. It didn't include some of the more recent news-channels however.

However, please note that "accuracy" isn't the same as "bias", as a station could have a strong bias and yet be quite accurate in its reporting.

The point of this thread is to examine the sources to in fact see for ourselves and not take anyone’s opinion like the media bias sites. The media bias charts haven’t been that great in my opinion. When looking at an issue, one sided views that are prevalent don’t really help if we want the truth of the matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

One thing seldom considered in addition to accuracy & bias
is negativity. I heard an interesting Freakonomics podcast
about this. The upshot....
Beware news sources that tend to make one feel hostility
towards any side. This can be independent of accuracy,
since accurate info can be used to manipulate one. You
see this effect on RF in some posters, who have only
invective for the "other", & see no merit in any of their tribe.

I prefer a mix of sources with different biases, but avoiding
those with great negativity. It's a stress free way to get
more news, & less agenda laden hostile gossip.

Occasionally, I'll snoop on some, eg, OAN, just to observe
where the most knuckle dragging MAGAs get their info.
It can help to discover why they believe what they do, eg,
Biden stole the election (for certain) thereby creating a
constitutional crisis, that Ivermectin is much better than
vaccines for treating Covid 19. It's fascinating...a gorillas
in the mist type of news watching.

 

[Polymath257]

Would be great to find some accurate news and science sources that everyone could agree on. This is the reason for this thread. For example All Sides has a chart and specifically says it’s by perspective or other sites say it’s by trust. I still wouldn’t say these are accurate assessments of a news source. I would rather have accurate and not biased.

I think the first step is to realize there is no such thing as unbiased reporting because there is no such thing as unbiased people. any viewpoint you care to consider will have people that disagree, not only on the interpretation of the facts, but with what the facts are. And when it comes to reporting on motivations, all bets are off. Also, remember that many people are strongly motivated to hide the facts that disagree with their world views. They will do this through political methods as well as simply not talking about what is going on.

Even in the *selection* of what makes the news, there will be a bias. What is considered to be news will vary from person to person, from reporter to reporter, and from organization to organization. Just imagine the differences between Al-Jazeerah and the Associated Press.

What that means is that you should have a variety of different biases in your media choices, hopefully counteracting each other so that you can get a reasonably accurate sense of what is going on. But remember, many of the facts won't be known, or will be disputed, and disagreements will be justified as 'different interpretations'.

So, read those in the green rectangle above. Then read sources from other countries. Read sources from sources you violently disagree with. Try to figure out what the biases are for each source, because biases are guaranteed to exist. But you are in better shape if you know the biases than if you don't.

Also, do some reading of history. Start with a good world history and then specialize. Get an overview of what has happened so you can fit what is happening into the historical picture. But realize that the closer you get to the present, the more biased even historical writings will be. There were biases before, but we have different biases now, so we can report on the history a bit more objectively.

Again, to expect an unbiased source is to ignore reality. No such source has *ever* existed. Some are better than others and some are completely unreliable. But NONE is completely unbiased.