[Serious Question] Where do you go to find non-partisan news/information

The 'liberal media' is largely a myth. The problem with the conservative viewpoint is that any information that doesn't implicitly confirm the conservative biases is immediately dismissed as partisan i.e. liberal.

CNN is considered 'liberal' by conservatives not because it affirms any liberal bias, but because it doesn't confirm conservative viewpoints.

 

I think it's really an honest post, but it just struck me as odd for some reason.

I guess if you're just trying to get the facts of a situation, there shouldn't need to be a stage where you measure facts against your beliefs.

I'm not trying to be snotty; I think a lot of people do just what you posted, even if that's not exactly what you meant or exactly what you yourself do. You probably were referring more to opinion pieces or commentary.

 

no such thing, closest would be C-SPAN

 

No snottiness taken.

We are all inherently biased one way or another. If you're particularly religious, for example, your beliefs will weigh more heavily on matters such as abortion and vice.

Or if you're concerned about taxes going up or down, you can listen to the facts and/or opinions, and determine whether you believe the impact on you is fair or unfair, right or wrong.

That sort of thing.

 

cuttingthroughthematrix.com (Alan Watt)

No corporate financing for this guy, only donations. Archives of shows, podcasts, and information dating back to at least 2006. Most will consider this 'out there' at first, but he goes deep into history. You can find many of his short clips on Youtube as well.

He does a live show M-F at 7 PM CST. Can listen here at:

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/shoutcast/shoutcast.html

 

I've often wondered where you get your info. Thanks for this.

 

That's a pretty outrageously subjective statement. To which religion are you referring? And to which sect? A lot of Christians wouldn't even count abortion or vice as the most important issues by which they determine their political leanings.

Some might care more for example about, oh, feeding the hungry or caring for the poor. You know, as in providing health care or food stamps or welfare or unemployment or fair labor laws.

Some might care about treating others as you'd treat yourself, as in the various civil rights movements. Some might be turned off by laws that favor the rich (as in the idea that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than the gates of Heaven).

Or maybe some religious people might care about opposing killing the born and not just the unborn (as in the death penalty or wars) or lying (bearing false witness) or, I don't know, adultery... You know, Ten Commandment stuff.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I think a lot of religious people would take issue with your assessment of their priorities.

 

I think the only solution is to either stop caring about domestic political news or just watch and read all of them and try to formulate your own view.

You could also try reading english-language news based overseas, because the editors don't vote here and therefore have less of a stake in the minutia, and only have so much space for the most important and relevant of our issues. You also don't have to sift through all of the general interest crap that news orgs put in to attract non-serious readers; like American Idol recaps.

You could also stop worrying about bias and more about relevance and insight, which should steer you more towards weekly or quarterly journals that are admittedly heavier on commentary; but well-researched and written. Nothing of genuine importance can get accurately or fully reported in the course of a single news-day.

 

I don't have a particular source. I read and listen to everything that I have time for, and I have more time than most. I even listen to Limbaugh sometimes while driving the car. Know thy enemy. However, having said that, there is one source I rarely look at in any form, which is Fox. They are simply a propaganda tool for the far-right fantasies of one Rupert Murdoch and far more fiction than news. A running sore on the Body Politic. That's the only source with what I consider a conservative bent that I don't check out. I love the Economist, for example, which is certainly conservative, but intelligently conservative, like the late William F. Buckley, Jr. was, a man I really admired.

Anyone who depends on one source for most of their news and opinions is a fool.

 

does not compute. if you rarely look at them, how can you have any opinion, much less view them as a right wing propaganda tool?

 

The more that news goes infotainment rather than news the more I catch myself watching PBS. Bill Moyers, Frontline, and Need to Know are top notch. Nightline used to kick ass but it's nothing more than an E offset now, sad.

 

Facts are all that matter.

Punditry is largely worthless, it's all been said before (especially with the advent of the internet). I find shows like Frontline/60 Minutes/NOW, and most of NPRs stuff to be garbage. It's heavily edited and narrated, they decide what you see and hear. It caters to those that want to feel smart, because those types of shows tell people what to think.

Ask any blogger and they will tell you that new facts generate the most traffic.

If you think Fox is biased or corrupt or whatever, go out with a camera and track some of them down, or get a scoop from someone inside the organization. If you want to persuade, facts are the key.

Drudge understands this, he has an agenda, but he uses links to news stories to drive it. He doesn't write editorials. He collects facts (or supposed facts), uses it to create a narrative, and people gravitate toward that. You can peruse his site for 30 seconds and be more informed (or ill-informed) than watching any 30 minute news show on TV.

For foriegn affairs you can't beat counterterrorismblog or The Long War Journal, again, you can inform yourself far better and faster than watching some pompously narrated Frontline episode.

 

I agree here - if you want to know the truth, assume every source has it's biases...the truth is what is similarly reported across the board no matter what political or relgious, nationalistic, or whatever tendicies thsoe sources have.

Compare all sources and you can figure out what's likely true and what's likely biased.

 

too racist?

 

There's no such thing as media that doesn't decide what you see and hear. The question is whether or not what they decide to show is as representative of the facts as possible. That also means calling a spade a spade and not pretending that all sides of a position deserve the time of day.

 

Or you can read a hyperbole free piece from AP and avoid that biased garbage altogether.

 

AP is no longer universally regarded to be unbiased or objective.

 

Plus now AP does "analysis" rather than just straight news reporting.

Journalists like to feel as if they are more than just stenographers of events.

 

Joking. But I was there today in fact (Speakers corner, Hyde Park).

 

BBC World News service