Support NeoGAF

[jmdajr]

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-your-preferred-news-outlet-says-about-your-political-ideology-2014-10 more

A little different than the previous chart.

 

[Messofanego]

There's also Reuters. They've got a Youtube channel, too.

 

[Chezzymann]

Why would it be a joke? I love NPR and I listen to them daily.

Because by saying reality has a liberal bias you're in fact biased, or close minded and think that your viewpoint is factually the correct viewpoint

 

[DOWN]

NPR leans slightly liberal in it's programming but it's reporting is very non-partisan. It's one of the few news sources I listen to these days.

EDIT: LOL at Buzzfeed.

CBS seems ok to me.

edit: heh maybe not to this...

edit edit: lol buzz feed

BuzzFeed News is great actually. They've acquired some notable and solid news writers.

 

[Drifters]

CBS seems ok to me.

edit: heh maybe not to this...

edit edit: lol buzz feed

Glenn Beck is higher than I would have thought on that list.

 

[dankir]

Huffington Post and Brietbart

 

[Balphon]

I tend to go to the BBC or Al Jazeera English.

 

[Xe4]

As others have said, PBS and NPR are really good. Only their news stuff though. NPR morning edition and all things considered are really good and unbaised, but stuff like Democracy Now! is super biased.

I'm personally a big fan of the weekl news magazine, "The Week". They always present differing opinions to illustrate the bigger picture.

This is also a good reccomandation. It has its bias, but does a good job at saying what different sides actually think so you can understand their views better. Seriously though, don't judge it by its cover. It's content is very good.

 

[SciencePilot]

I've liked NPR.

Honestly though, I want to give a small shoutout to GAF as a useful resource. A lot of times if I hear about some crazy news story, later I read the discussion on GAF and see various people poking holes in the shoddy parts of the story. I think this hole-poking is useful for taking the partisan edge off a lot of reporting.

I should say that it's important to read entire GAF threads though, not just a few posts. A lot of times the first posts in a thread are knee jerk reaction, and then you can see more truth emerge from the conversation later in.

 

[Necrovex]

So the wallstreet journal?

As long as you avoid the opinion pieces (a fiery dumpster), it's a fairly solid paper.

Though I'd say stick with BBC, AP, and PBS.

 

[RJT]

Honestly though, I want to give a small shoutout to GAF as a useful resource. A lot of times if I hear about some crazy news story, later I read the discussion on GAF and see various people poking holes in the shoddy parts of the story. I think this hole-poking is useful for taking the partisan edge off a lot of reporting.

I should say that it's important to read entire GAF threads though, not just a few posts. A lot of times the first posts in a thread are knee jerk reaction, and then you can see more truth emerge from the conversation later in.

Not on politics. The way every non Hilary fan is treated is pretty much disturbing (and I say this as someone who would definitely vote for Hilary if I was American).

 

[Malfunky]

A neutral news media just doesn't exist. Especially in politics. It's practically impossible to escape ideology and the agenda that arise from it. Don't ever accept anything that claims it's being "fair and balanced", like the obvious example.

You pretty much have to pick what you trust to be the best sources. Which will probably align with your own politics/ethics. You have to develop the ability to scrutinize with your own criteria. Because those claiming they can do it for you are those trying to swindle you.

I listen to/watch Democracy Now! It's as real as it gets as far as broad syndication goes. And it's consistently depressing!