Unbiased News?

[kork13]

This has been annoying me more and more of late... I worked for a newspaper for a few years, and one facet of what you might call the 'journalist's creed' involves a separation from bias. When I wrote my articles, I would strive after that goal. Soon enough, I learned the reality of Journalism... the news doesn't matter--it's just having something to report, something that will draw viewers/readers, something that will bring your name to the momentary lime light. As you may perceive, I've become a bit disenchanted by the news media, and have little respect for the industry as a whole.

So now, everywhere you look, 'news' agencies are increasingly more biased. Some lean to the right, many lean to the left, but very few stick the middle and truly keep bias under control. It's becoming a rarity to find a news outlet that simply reports news as just the facts, without attempting to spin them one way or other. Normally, this comes in the form of either directly expressing opinions in the reporting, or only presenting one side of the story.

Do any of you know of a news source that is legitimately unbiased in its reporting? I'd LOVE to find a decent news outlet, because trying to sift through the *ahem* is time consuming and frustrating.

[maat55]

It's funny you mention this. For years, I had the dream of starting a local publication for the purpose of educating the public on candidates and elected officials records with some analysis of local and national issues. I wanted it to be an strictly factual presentation. I was going to name it Just the Facts.

Maybe there is a market for it nationally.

[GREENBACK]

Unbiased reporting doesn't sell their medium as you know. They want sensationalism anytime and all the time. I've been interviewed by media oulets a number of times over the years and it's incrdible the spin they can put on things.

[Harry00]

I like "The U.S. Farm Report." Though not all of it is relevant, I find no bias in it at all, which is refreshing

[kork13]

Unbiased reporting doesn't sell their medium as you know. They want sensationalism anytime and all the time. I've been interviewed by media oulets a number of times over the years and it's incrdible the spin they can put on things.

I entirely agree.... But in a day of sensationalism, don't you think that it would create a vacuum for a non-biased news source to take advantage of those who want factual news coverage?

I got to thinking a bit more about all this, and it's really a demonstration of how little effort news agencies put into their reporting. If you've ever written a college thesis before, you know that you're required (at least by any decent professor) to balance your argument, putting forward facts which both support and oppose your point. It's not that journalists can't get the entire set of facts, it's just that they choose not to, or are too lazy to look for and consider them.

It's funny you mention this. For years, I had the dream of starting a local publication for the purpose of educating the public on candidates and elected officials records with some analysis of local and national issues. I wanted it to be an strictly factual presentation. I was going to name it Just the Facts.

Maybe there is a market for it nationally.

If you ever start it up, let me know. I'd go for it--a little transparency (for once) would be nice up in DC.

[sweeps]

I would argue it is impossible to avoid bias in news reporting. Like it or not, your reporters and sources have bias and when digging up the story, they look at the issues from their own particular angle. They will inadvertently miss some facts and concentrate more on other facts.

Also you don't have unlimited time (or space) to report the news. Someone must make the decision what stories are important enough to be included in your news (and in what order). By deeming one story important but not another, you are injecting bias.

Also something else that happens (and can be really annoying) is in an effort to remain "unbiased", TV shows will give equal time to what they consider to be opposing viewpoints. The problem is if an issue is split 90/10, the newscast attempts to make it 50/50 so they don't appear to be on one side or the other. To me that is misleading and not "factual".

[SnoopyCool]

Unfortunately, I think you have to read/listen here and read/listen there and draw your own conclusions. I agree with Sweeps that it is impossible to completely avoid bias, but it certainly could be reigned in.

Also, as far as saving time for the opposing viewpoint, I believe that is part of the Fairness Doctrine.

[disneysteve]

I think it is impossible to avoid bias. Even if the reporter doesn't add any of his own personal bias, the info itself reflects the bias of the source.

Look at the Presidential debates. My favorite part is watching the news the next morning when they do the fact checking segment. They review what each candidate said and point out all of the statements that were made that simply aren't true. It happened just as much with each candidate. So if the sources of the quotes, the candidates themselves, are biased, how can the reporting possibly be unbiased?

[sweeps]

Also, as far as saving time for the opposing viewpoint, I believe that is part of the Fairness Doctrine.

Well, the Fairness Doctrine is messed up. 300 million Americans could believe one thing and 1 goofy person believes something else. By giving both equal time, it distorts reality.

More to the point... There are a million different viewpoints on a subject, not just 2. If you truly want to be fair, you'd need to get everyone's view -- obviously an impossible thing to accomplish.

[FrugalIII]

The written media in my locale are extremely Democratic. They are extremely liberal in their writing and the stories they cover. Regionally/nationally, the only written media I find even close to impartial is the Wall Street Journal. Some would argue that it is a conservative paper, but now that it has new ownership it has changed some. I, being a staunch conservative, listen to/watch only FOX news now. They lean to the right, but do at least make an attempt to show both sides. The other national networks are obviously to the far left. At least in my opinion.

[arthurb999]

Fox news has the most balanced reporting I've come across

[bjl584]

As long as the news is reported by human beings there will be at least some element of biased incorporated into it.

[disneysteve]

Even if you report "just the facts" there is still going to be a bias because you can't report ALL of the facts. Due to space or time constraints, you have to select which facts to focus on. Do you do the feature on the abortion rights rally or the one on the anti-choice movement? Do you broadcast live from the annual gun show or do a piece on hand gun crimes? I just don't see how it would be possible to have no bias.

[GREENBACK]

Some bias is inevitable but one thing I've noticed is there definitely seems to be a liberal bias in television. I'm always amazed at the "softball" questions tv reporters ask liberal candidates and the way they go after anything conservative. Very obvious in the recent presidential campaign.l

[Broken Arrow]

Although I completely agree that it's impossible to avoid bias, I think it is within a professional reporter's abilities to be as unbiased as they can... despite the outcome.

I think the real problem is we the readers and viewers. Unfortunately, we like sensationalism. We like a good rousing debate. We like lop-sided views that "tell it like it is". Well, I personally don't but the reality is many people out there do.

If not, these news shows wouldn't get so much ratings, we wouldn't have so many political pundits on the air waves, and we would indeed have straight, professional news coverage that is reported as unbiased as humanly possible.

Drama sells....