Media Sources

[clintonesque]

What in your opinion are your best source(s) of unbiased media
information/sources.

This may include specific columnists

Online publication

Offline publication




PS
I'm trying to update my lists.

Here are a few of mine:
http://www.c-span.org/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/buckley/
http://news.google.com/
http://www.nypost.com/
http://www.theonion.com/
http://www.stimson.org/
http://www.london-daily.co.uk/
http://www.stratfor.com/
http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
http://www.nypost.com/
http://www.cpost.mb.ca/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://pppp.net/links/news/
http://nytimesfax.com/
http://www.topstory.ca/papers.html
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/

[ilw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk they won a whole bunch of european awards for the reporting and layout. Generally a good mix of comprehensiveness and speed.

http://www.newscientist.com for all the latest science stuff

[evilbagpuss]

aye, BBC is very good.

A non-commercial organisation that has a long history of fair reporting and who's impartiality is enshrined in UK law. Its a pretty unique organisation and one that most UK citizens are very proud of.

[Illuminati]

The Mirror (newspaper) - www.mirror.co.uk

AFAIK one of only three in the UK who didn't follow the government without question. I was impressed that while they took a strong anti-war stance at the time, they did allow those in favour of war a voice in the matter - One thing I like most of the pro-war newspapers didn't do significantly for the anti-war supporters

Still, even without considering the war reports - The amount of stuff that's been in it the past 2-3 years has made me think about a lot of stuff

[Neil__]

Isn't "UNBIASED" with respect to media purely a matter of opinion?

Thanks for the links will take a look.

Neil.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Neil...
Isn't "UNBIASED" with respect to media purely a matter of opinion?

Not really. To me unbiased means showing both sides of the story and not trying to support one side over the other.

Compare the BBC to any British tabloid and you'll see what I mean.

[clintonesque]

Thanx all, I'll check them out.


j2k4, Where are you?

[ilw]

IMO the daily mirror is about as unbiased as the daily mail. The fact u say they 'took a strong stance' kinda implies that they were being biased doesn't it?

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by Neil__@10 July 2003 - 16:02
Isn't "UNBIASED" with respect to media purely a matter of opinion?

indeed, the search for "unbiased" media is a lost cause, its like looking for "nice people." As i have posted several times in the past, however, i happen to think that the best journalism comes from those that are somehow politically motivated (as opposed to following the politically-neutered creed of "objective reporting"), but follow rigorous standards in the practice of their trade. This i call good bias (talkingpointsmemo) as opposed to bad bias (fox news). So, you can respect a journalist who doesn't share your political perspective because s/he is honest, fair and rigourous, and is a worthy opponent.

"Objective" reporting too often leads to mindless apolitical stories about X number of dead in country Y, or who's sleeping with whom, the latest celebrity gossip, or irrelevant human interest stories of brave, intelligent sisters joined at the cranium.

"objective" reporting is the creature of business not journalism; poltical commentary alienates readers, and gathering readers is how media make their money. so we have objective reporting at the lowest common denominator, and murdoch et al make a fortune selling our attention spans to companies.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+10 July 2003 - 16:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 10 July 2003 - 16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil...
Isn&#39;t "UNBIASED" with respect to media purely a matter of opinion?

Not really. To me unbiased means showing both sides of the story and not trying to support one side over the other.

Compare the BBC to any British tabloid and you&#39;ll see what I mean. [/b][/quote]
I agree if all sides are given equal weight and thought and I knew the reporter had no axe to grind then I would call it unbiased.
But if I had any real agenda then I could concider any opposing view biased.
I also find it hard to accept that any "for profit" organisation is ever truely unbiased
especially one run by Murdock.

Neil.