Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm starting to get annoyed with this thinking. There is no such thing as an unbiased media publication. If some publication doesn't fall in line with your views, you will think its biased. I got a 100 bucks, if you ask 100 people if CNN is biased or not, most will say its biased, and then they will say is either to far to the right or left.
I'm starting to get annoyed with this thinking. There is no such thing as an unbiased media publication. If some publication doesn't fall in line with your views, you will think its biased. I got a 100 bucks, if you ask 100 people if CNN is biased or not, most will say its biased, and then they will say is either to far to the right or left.
But what about media outlets that present views from left to right?
I'm starting to get annoyed with this thinking. There is no such thing as an unbiased media publication. If some publication doesn't fall in line with your views, you will think its biased. I got a 100 bucks, if you ask 100 people if CNN is biased or not, most will say its biased, and then they will say is either to far to the right or left.
Journalism has been dying in this country for a while. Some foreign sources are safer bets to that effect. And likes of PBS are hated because they don't provide what people want to tune into. CNN, for example is more about a "Reality Show" than journalism/media.
I consider a "bias" to mean favoring one political group and protecting them from scrutiny. A lot of conservatives perceive being pro-gay and anti-religion as biases although those things are common sense against ignorance. Here are some publications that generally do a good job of being equally critical to both sides:
CS Monitor
New Yorker magazine (although thats not a traditional news magazine, they have more indepth journalism on issues that aren't as time sensitive)
Project Censored (website that publishes news stories ignored by the mainstream media)
National Enquirer (not entirely accurate publication but exposed Bill Clinton and John Edwards affairs)
Hmmmm. Good Question. I have never looked at the Christian Science Monitor and it seems to be getting high marks from many people here. I will go check it out! Thanks.
All humans are biased. You are not going to get around perception. Now some publications may present their sources and information better and even what is perceived as "alternative" views.
However, don't see how you are going to get around perception. There is no "objective" maybe more balanced.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Did I break a few hearts?)
