21 11

QUESTION How biased is your news source? You probably won’t agree with this chart - MarketWatch

I would put the NYT and WP a lot lower and to the left but overall I agree with this chart.

Further, this justifies my choice over the past few years to get all my news from AP, Reuters, NPR, and the BBC

TheMiddleWay 8 Mar 24

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


If in doubt about any news report there are plenty of reliable fact-checking websites. Two I use are Politi-Fact and WaPo.

I find snopes to be pretty reliable as well...



The Hill
NY Times

....are my usual go-to news sources.
Proud leftie! ) ?


I've seen that before, it's interesting. I only really actively pursue npr and aljazera a little. The only news show I really love is Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and that's part comedy, but I love the info.

A box cane up asking if I would approve (or not) your post. Of course I approved it. Just thought you should know.

I also find Aljazeera a good source of news. Very professional.

Love your handle (yes, showing my age good buddy) BTW. Wish I could be so inventive.

Keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down. Ten four - we gone.

@El-loco that happens with new member posts once you reach a certain level.

@Blindbird what's a handle...? 😀

@TingleMuffin lol. Your username


Thanks for brining up ALJ. They are surprisingly unbiased in presenting a non-western point of view.


I'm a fan of AP, NPR, PBS, WAPO, BBC & NYT. So I'm on solid ground.

If only WP and NYT could get away from their daily "sources said" journalism, I could get back into them.

As it stands, there is very little chance that they verify what their sources are saying before printing it and that has really cooled me off to their style of "reporting"

@TheMiddleWay I agree with you and I think the NYT is more guilty of it than WAPO. But I read them them because they are a little different. If I agree with everything I read as news then I have constructed an echo chamber for myself. For that reason I also read sources i usually dislike just for gross calibration.


I would amend my statement to agree with you: NYT is more guilty of "source first; verification later" and WAPO has done some good journalism lately


I get news from all over the world and use aps to do so. I can agree with your last sentence about your sources. As for those who constantly cry "fake news" today you can see that Donnie got his job done. He doesn't like criticism or to be challenged so he wanted to control your news sources. The bottom line is where does that moron get his news? Certainly you can't believe that the entire world is against him. I know. It's all one worldwide conspiracy against Donald Trump.

There are video clips of him being photographed by the press on Air Force One and you can hear Fox News in the background. There are also a bunch of articles detailing the coincidental timing of his tweets with the same or similar stories on Fox News.


I pretty much agree with the chart.


Al jazeera, bbc, and reuters. Then I gather what the common thread and get my picture.

Surprising that ALJ is not on the list (that I can see). I find them very reliable and I welcome their non-western point of view


I like British SkyNews, Singapore News, and Aljazeera here in Thailand, and online I like AP news, Google News, BBC news, NPR, Newsweek, Reuters, Popular Science, etc.

I like those too, and I can pretty much agree with the chart.

ALJ I like for their non-western perspective... thanks for bringing them up.

@Leon racist p.o.s.

@AmiSue hood idea...thanks


Something I noticed prior to the Reagan presidency, which brought us the end of the fairness doctrine enforced by the FCC, was that truth and facts have a liberal bias.

I agree with the chart for the most part. My criticism would be only that the far left doesn't need to manufacture "alternative truth", it only needs to throw a spin on actual facts.

Darco Level 3 Mar 28, 2018

I think the best "alternative truths" are those that are spun around actual facts. 😉

So while the left may be more polished at it, I think they both do the same thing of distorting the facts to suit their agenda.


My number one source of world news is the BBC web-site, and for TV I watch the BBC4 news at 7pm GMT. I augment this with Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar and has annoyed most Arab states by having truly investigative reporters. It also carries a load of coverage on lesser countries. For printed news I read the Economist, formerly a British publication but now owned by Time. For humourou treatment of serious political happenings in Britain I read Private Eye, the most sued publication in the world. (most litigants, many of them annoyed by being poked fun at, suddenly decide to drop their case, either for fear Private Eye will reveal even more details on them or because they suddenly realise that the best defense against libel is to prove it is the truth, and Private Eye has proof!)


I like that chart. My news sources come from the neutral area as well. I feel that my chosen news sources are more reliable.

These last few years, if nothing else, are teaching all of us how to better address what we are being told vs. what is really going on.


I am pleased to see that my sources are nearly neutral. It's nauseating the way some in the media promote divisiveness and rancor. Honestly, I wonder if the most diametrically opposed sources are actually colluding to keep people ignorant and protect and project corrupt influence over our government.

JimG Level 8 Mar 25, 2018

It's a bit of a two way street: they would not be colluding if there wasn't an audience hungry to be colluded to, you know?

I think that as much as the media is responsible for hyper- polarizing us, it's worth noting that we as the public are also responsible for hyper polarizing ourselves.

@TheMiddleWay I cannot disagree.


Most of these are news sources with an agenda. Just as the one's you mention in your opening. I listen to NPR pretty much 5 days a week as a truck driver and the agenda hypocrisy perception management just spews out all day long. The BBC is like a sister to NPR. I use NPR for breaking news and to keep my bullshit meter fine tuned. These aren't news sources, they're perception management for profit, population brainwashing for the benefit of the establishments control. What that really is, is a list of the people who keep you establishment supporters divided, which leads to governments that never gets anything done for the people of the world. Long live the Empire! Heil!


My favorite news sources are NPRm PBS, followed distantly by MSNBC.


Seems about right for Political News. When it comes to Science News, all sources go with the "popular" story. It does not matter that it misrepresents the topic at all.

I have noticed that local news programs generally do a better job of being unbiased than their Cable / National affiliates.

Yes, even the local Fox affiliates are pretty solid, but their national coverage is Trump propaganda.

@JimG Yeah, I find that interesting!


I tend to the same. AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC... then supplement and check as needed from my left buddies at Daily Kos. Other than that, I use TPM, Politico, The Hill, Al Jazeera to balance. I never use HuffPo or RawStory for news, only for tips. 🙂


In general, the news has become more and more managed ever since Vietnam, where reporters were too honest, turning a generation against a dishonest reason for fighting. The establishment began not just managing reporters, but buying up the bigger news sources. I don't trust many news sources. The Young Turks is trying. Al Jazeera, BBC, Reuters, Google News - Some others help us get a fairly good look at the news.

For a moment there I thought I might actually like a comment on here. I was having a Robert Parry moment while reading your first 3 sentences! Then it all went to hell.


i follow the peoples daily (english)


An eye opener there.


One of our big problems is that we have essentially lost the Fourth Estate for investigative reporting, and now have to rely on the Fifth Estate to leak the news we need to keep tabs on our Politicians and what they do. The inherent problem with this is the highly suspect nature of the Fifth Estate. That said, they do, on occasion report the news we need to hear.

I find the whole Russia / Hillary / election scandal fascinating. My take on it is:

  1. Much of the anti-Hillary reporting was true and would have never come out to "popular" media if the Russians did not investigate and report it. I feel they, very mistakenly, also reported a bunch of stupid nonsense which diminished the public acceptability of their efforts (such as the child porn in pizza shop basement story). I think they were simply trying anything to destroy Hillary so Trump would win.

  2. The Russians succeeded in getting the story out about Hillary, but it ultimately had little effect on her popularity, and because of our Electorial system that is designed to favor the political party in power, she won the votes but lost the election.

  3. On a more personal belief, Russia very accidentally has helped us. They exposed to the masses the corruption of the Clintons and many other Politicians. The election of Trump is proving to be a glaringly huge fiasco and is illustrating many of the problems with our collapsing political system. We couldn't fix these problems until we knew they existed. And, we are now a bit more skeptical about our news sources.

Do you actually have any actual, real, evidence for the claims of corruption made against Hillary?

Does the interference in our political process by a foreign power not seem like a bad thing regardless of their claimed justification?


Well, there IS this:

"The FBI is investigating whether the Clinton Foundation accepted donations in exchange for political favors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State, two people familiar with the probe confirmed Friday."



Depends if you consider FB, an international platform, part of our political process.

Because near as I can tell, all the "interference", at worst, amounted to flooding FB with anti-clinton content.

@icolan I'd like to see her and Bill explain how they've made $250,000,000 serving the taxpayers


I should not even reply to your question since you are obviously trying to be confrontational. However...

The "Clinton Corruption" is pretty much legal or can not be proven to be illegal. However, the intent is there. I voted for Bill Clinton before I became more aware of the corruption that is rampant throughout our government. That moment occured when Hillary did not divorce Bill. I would ask any woman, would they stay married to a man who routinely lies and cheats....many times....unless they was "something in it for them"? I worked for the Feds. The first week you get Cybersecurity training! And they very definitely tell you to NEVER use non governmental equipment for government business. In ethics training they tell you to document everything, and destroy nothing until it has cleared. You can go to my old office and still pull up my emails and other documents 12 years later! And my info had nothing to do with National Security. Fairly all the evidence againt the Clintons is circumstantial, legal, or common practices. But there is a great body of it! Ever notice how so very little has been satisfactorily refuted? And to be fair, it is not just the Clintons, or the Democrats (I was a life long Democrat until the Democrats chose Hillary in the last election. I am now Independent.), most politicians are corrupt to some level. Our Political System makes it damned near impossible not to be! (We need to change this!). And don't forget, there are investigations going on in to the way the Clintons do business. But I give Hillary credit, she has consistently tried to keep everything non-illegal. ' Gosh, I didn't know you would want "those" documents. I shredded them while getting your requested documents together and , you know, tidying up a little.'

As for interference in our Election... it is an innane question, but lets give it some context. I blame no country for trying to interfer with our elections. "What is fair for the goose, is fair for the gander", as the saying goes. The US has interfered and sponsored (often discreetly) whole regime change in many other countries (You likely don't know the real story of how Hawaii became part of the US) (We need to stop this!) since there was an America, and by extension through England, since the Middle Ages. Jimmy Carter (I really like him as a fairly honest man) signed Operation Cyclone that lead to the momentary collapse of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. Would we not expect retaliation? Israel has been interfering in our elections for 50 years, no one says a word about it. We simply send them more aid ( in spite of their attack on the USS Liberty), and deny meaningful aid to our solid allies the Kurds.

The Russians were not really against Hillary, they are against the US! And the election of Trump was sort of like throwing a nuke pack into our Heartland. If things were different, they would have backed Hillary over Bernie. Whatever would do the most harm as quickly as possible and with as little incrimination as possible.

@twill This is precisely why so many want to get into Politics. You can take legal bribes.

@Reignmond My question was entirely honest, I was not attempting to be confrontational. My position on the Clinton's is that they are no more or less corrupt than any other elected officials in this country.

As for her staying with him after the Lewinsky scandal, her choices in that regard are her own and are not open for us to debate. There are a lot of married couple that survive infidelity and it is not for anyone outside the marriage to pass judgement on that.

While our country has interfered in many other countries internal affairs, I never claimed it was right. The point I was attempting to make was that it is not right for a US Citizen to advocate for a foreign power to interfere in our internal affairs.

Do you know a Citizen (other than our President and some Republicans) that advocate Russian interference in US affairs? I don't.

@Reignmond Your initial post sounded very much that way, if I misinterpreted it, I apologize.

It has become a common mistake that most people do not read ALL the words or perhaps they fail to register their meaning. It may be a "young person's" affliction. The use of the word "accidentally" makes my intent quite clear.


National enquirer is not unbiased, lol.

Does it really matter if they are biased or not, how much of it is actually true?

@icolan yes it matters, bias means how much is true.

@engineer_in_nj Bias determines how much the article or organization skews to the conservative or liberal, not a measure of the truth.

If the entire article is fake is it any more or less fake if it has a conservative or liberal bias?

@icolan biased is just another way of saying how accurate it is. If its biased it is inaccurate. If a news source for example endorses a political candidate they are not biased which is the same as inaccurate.

The Las Vegas Review endorsed Trump, therefore they have a bias, therefore they are not accurate, which is why I don't read them.

@engineer_in_nj I disagree, an article can be entirely factually accurate but still have a liberal or conservative bias. Bias describes the slant of the article, how it displays the prejudice of the author or publisher. You can express the factual truth with a liberal or conservative bias. It depends on how you frame the narrative you are telling.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:42888
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.