So many times someone posts a link to a site and the rebuttal is oh that's a .(enter political leaning word) biased site.
I'm curious which sites you feel are reliable/accurate, and should I hope, unbiased for political reporting.
I ask that you not reply as to your feeling about others posts.
I'm just curious.
That's something you will need to decide for yourself.
It's like asking which of Nikon or Canon is the better camera. What you will get is, "I use THIS one, so it must be the better one."
When it comes to politics, opinion rules. Attempting to argue facts seems to be verboten.
Choose wisely.
Some sites are less biased than others
Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.
Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.
Big Bill wrote:
That's something you will need to decide for yourself.
It's like asking which of Nikon or Canon is the better camera. What you will get is, "I use THIS one, so it must be the better one."
When it comes to politics, opinion rules. Attempting to argue facts seems to be verboten.
Choose wisely.
Keenan
Loc: Central Coast California
chrisscholbe wrote:
So many times someone posts a link to a site and the rebuttal is oh that's a .(enter political leaning word) biased site.
I'm curious which sites you feel are reliable/accurate, and should I hope, unbiased for political reporting.
I ask that you not reply as to your feeling about others posts.
I'm just curious.
3 points:
1) Reliable/accurate is not the same thing as unbiased. Biased is not the same thing as false/unreliable.
2) There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has a set of values/world view that determines the person's particular bias. Although 'extremely biased' usually correlates with low reliability/accuracy, it is not possible to be completely free of bias. We are not all going to agree on what is or is not biased, nor on the definition of bias. What some people might perceive as unbiased, another group of people will see the same source/perspective as very biased.
3) I think it is more useful to talk about
journalistic standards. Does the source have a track record of accuracy/reliability? Do they use good proper standards of
verification/fact checking? Do they engage in poor journalistic practices, such as publishing rumors/conspiracy theories as fact? Do they correct mistakes and publish apologies and retractions/corrections after mistakes in their reporting are discovered?
Facts are neither liberal nor conservative nor libertarian nor whatever, despite what some
feel. Conservatives tend to be much more willing to distort/deny objective facts that contradict their feelings/narrative than most other groups I've seen.
I actually agree with what Keenan said except for the last sentence...
Keenan wrote:
3 points:
1) Reliable/accurate is not the same thing as unbiased. Biased is not the same thing as false/unreliable.
2) There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has a set of values/world view that determines the person's particular bias. Although 'extremely biased' usually correlates with low reliability/accuracy, it is not possible to be completely free of bias. We are not all going to agree on what is or is not biased, nor on the definition of bias. What some people might perceive as unbiased, another group of people will see the same source/perspective as very biased.
3) I think it is more useful to talk about journalistic standards. Does the source have a track record of accuracy/reliability? Do they use good proper standards of verification/fact checking? Do they engage in poor journalistic practices, such as publishing rumors/conspiracy theories as fact? Do they correct mistakes and publish apologies and retractions/corrections after mistakes in their reporting are discovered?
Facts are neither liberal nor conservative nor libertarian nor whatever, despite what some feel. Conservatives tend to be much more willing to distort/deny objective facts that contradict their feelings/narrative than most other groups I've seen.
3 points: br br 1) Reliable/accurate is not the s... (
show quote)
I agree with most of your observations......but NOT the last sentence....it is not totally owned by conservatives.
1) What I meant was reliably accurate.
2) While I agree that everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean that is hast to show in their reporting.
3) I agree that "journalistic standards" may be a more accurate way of describing what I'm interested in.
So, using your clarification:
Which sites maintain a "high journalistic standard"?
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
Screamin Scott wrote:
I actually agree with what Keenan said except for the last sentence...
If you were to equate the right wingers here in the Attic with all conservatives, then Keenan would be right. However, I find the conservatives that I interact with in real life to be nothing like the shit slingers who inhabit these parts.
If the actual conservatives that I know in real life are more reflective of all conservatives, the Keenan would be wrong. I guess it depends on which segment of "conservatives" one is most exposed to.
I do NOT, and do NOT recommend that anyone use the individuals here as a "bell weather" for how others of the same political bent would/do act.
What we tend to see here, in the Attic, are the extreme extremes.
I don't believe that "most" of the people, in the country, typically curse and name call while having a conversation.
This is a very pertinent question. Bigness can be betterness as bigness can afford for background verification. Bigness can also afford more astutely trained staff. Bigness can also afford 'analysis' articles - these are probably of the most importance. Someone else has produced a list of major league sources.
John_F wrote:
This is a very pertinent question. Bigness can be betterness as bigness can afford for background verification. Bigness can also afford more astutely trained staff. Bigness can also afford 'analysis' articles - these are probably of the most importance. Someone else has produced a list of major league sources.
Keyword here is "can". Doesn't mean they all do...
nakkh wrote:
Some sites are less biased than others
Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.
Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.
I can't believe you can say that after looking at PolitiFact.
I agree with Bazbo's list.
Note that a lot of links referred to are "opinion" articles and not always "news" articles.
nakkh wrote:
Some sites are less biased than others
Fox, Politico (any site Idaho sources in his posts) are good examples of biased reporting.
Bazbo's list is pretty neutral.
Spazbo's list is pretty left wing!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.