Ask HN: Where do you go to read or watch neutral and unbiased news?
I guess answers will vary depending on where you are from, but where do you go to read or watch unbiased international news?
The Hill is surprisingly good for DC politics news.
The English version of Al Jazeera is Saudi-funded but usually covers stories fairly. (The arabic version is outright propaganda and should be avoided).
Vice News is pretty good. They have a new HBO show coming out.
The Intercept tends to get its facts right and sources them well. It's pro-Snowden and pro-Wikileaks but I haven't noticed any egregious slanting of the truth, or outright lies so far.
Even CNN (really!) has a couple of "real" journalists left working for them. The only one that seems to have enough clout to avoid editorial meddling is Fareed Zakaria (GPS).
John Oliver is biased, especially in terms of pro-Clinton content but his facts are usually correct. He's also funny.
Le Monde Diplomatique (French newspaper) used to be very good but I haven't read it in some time.
The BBC is generally accurate (and I give them props for funding an undercover investigation of their own director!) but I'd generally ignore it for hot-button UK-based political issues. It's one of the few sources that are legally-bound to be impartial however so they generally don't get TOO egregious.
The WSJ is still excellent for business news. Similarly the Financial Times in the UK. I'd largely ignore anything else they print however.
For the rest: I suggest just reading a story and then going straight to the source material to see how trustworthy it is. Any story that simply references another news outlet can be ignored - keep digging until you get to the actual sources then ask yourself if they are credible.
Al Jazeera is actually funded by Qatar, and you can read about the issues that they have here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c... . This includes the English version.
You can't call CNN unbiased just because one reported has so far been good.
In every subject that John Oliver reported on that I knew a bit about, I had to stop due to the amount of fallacies. For example, in one of the most recent ones, he jokes about how police worry about people armed with knives. He then shows a clip of a police officer explaining why knives are dangerous, but cuts him off in order to laugh at how stupid he is. Let me explain as a former soldier exactly why criminals with knives are dangerous. While in striking distance (an arms length) it takes someone with a knife in his hand a fraction of a second to cause damage. Whereas it can take a trained soldier (I assume police as well) to draw, cock, aim, and fire a gun up to 2 seconds. 2 seconds might sound like not a lot but there was a study done that showed that if a knife man was armed and within 21 feet, he will be able to attack a gun man with the gun in the harness.
The BBC has its issues as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
In the end, if you want a balanced view of the world. I would recommend listening to sources that state their bias from both sides.
The fact that he occasionally rises to a level of journalism that real news outlets fail to reach should be considered an indictment of such outlets, not an endorsement of Oliver's standards.
> I would recommend listening to sources that state their bias from both sides.
s/both/all/ , unless you're caught in the fallacy that there always two and only two sides to a story.
Anyway I used to think along similar lines, but to be honest, the rise of Berlusconi, Fox News, "shock jocks" and so on, basically turned me off to the whole idea. There is no "balance" to be found when one side is completely unhinged and wilfully lies all the time. By all means learn to discern bias, but it's entirely acceptable to simply discard sources altogether when they are too poisonous.
they were talking about how cops are legally allowed to shoot civilians, including a quote:
>fatal shootings can be considered legal even if they are unnecessary or disproportionate
and that police have a name for such killings as "Lawful but Awful"
JohnOliver:
>on top of all this, prosecutors can bring in expert witnesses who can present nearly any situation as a potential threat. Take dr Bill Lewinsky, who runs something called the force science institute; for years he has testified on behalf of police officers. here he is providing rationale for why it may be ok to shoot someone that has a knife
The clip starts, Bill Lewinsky talking:
>knives can actually be more dangerous than a gun, they dont have to be reloaded, they can be used at a close distance. And we know that a stab from a knife, or a stab or a cut can be extremely quick(Makes slashing motion)
John Oliver interrupts him there to make fun of his stabbing motion:
>come on, that is not the motion you make when stabbing someone, that is the motion you make when you are a teenage magician finishing a trick. 'is this your card?' but - but there is no doubt there is no doubt a knife is a dangerous weapon, but what if someone doesnt have a knife? Dr Lewinsky, could force still be necessary if someone is unarmed?
another clip of lewinsky plays,
>first of all its significant to know that unarmed does not mean theyre not dangerous. In fact, the fist may have been the first weapon that human beings used against each other. In fact ive measured strikes of human beings on other humans and the strikes can occur at a speed of 4 5 or 6 strikes in a second, and some of them (pounds fist into hand) really hard
Oliver then makes a rock paper scissors joke, and no more clips of lewinsky are played.
I dont think you could really call this John Oliver saying that knives are not dangerous, i dont see him joking about police being worried about people with knives - its clear that he thinks the use of deadly force is happening too often and with too little consequence for the officers, but thats the point of the segment.
"...there was a study done that showed that if a knife man was armed and within 21 feet, he will be able to attack a gun man with the gun in the harness."
This is commonly referred to as the "Tueller Drill", after a trainer who first published the phenomenon:
"How Close is Too Close?" by Dennis Tueller:
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
Interpretations of Tueller's findings vary a great deal depending on the role one plays in an interaction and one's intent. For example, one might conclude that police should e.g., "shoot anyone within 21 feet who has a knife.", "One shot and they're out of action." or "Anyone outside of 21 feet and carrying a knife can be disregarded." and so on. But those 3 statements are not necessarily true and one must analyze further:
"Re-Thinking the 21-Foot Rule":
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/d...
"The Tueller Drill Myth: Why The 21 Foot Rule Isn’t a Rule At All":
http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/the-tueller-drill...
Google discussion of the Tueller Drill:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tueller+drill&client=opera&h...
It is quite astonishing how a simple experiment has revised thought about the old adage "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight!" Indeed it appears that within the 21 foot range, someone without a knife could be effectively unarmed (even if they have a gun).
I scan headlines from multiple sources, consciously avoid clickbait and paywall sites (Forbes, I'm thinking of you), and try to use my head to think through issues that I care about. I read an article if it interests me, but I actually don't fully trust the source.
Honestly, it's really difficult. It would be great if something like Google News worked (and it does generate a diverse set of biases), but it is just aggregating a relatively biased set of sources.
Slower cycles (weekly, monthly) are generally better, and honestly you could switch to entirely getting your news on a weekly basis and being just fine.
So I personally would stay away from 24h news coverage. Local papers generally don't have a diverse editorial staff, and national papers often have deeply entrenched editorial staff. You can read the wires directly, but coverage is spotty and so you'll end up with a biased viewpoint regardless. Blogs and social media all suffer from a lack of editorial process, and while there may be better information buried deep it's not worth the misinformation burden to find it.
For weekly cycles, I like The Economist. It does have a bias, but it is a fairly politically independent one.
This is indeed the way to go. Publications will rarely outright lie to their readers, but rather conveniently not mention this or that. Reading something from 2-3 opposing publications will most likely give you the full story.
Having said all of that, some news sources have less spin. I like Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/. I think they are more similar to a wire service than a "we cater to your worldview" brand.
As an American, I sadly find that the UK's Guardian have better coverage of what is happening in the US than most US "news" papers and websites. That being said, The Guardian have some of the most maddening identity-politik editorials. One of my "favorite" Guardian editorials was Syreeta McFadden's piece about how film stock is racist because doesn't pick up the details of black faces. (Maybe learn how to use a camera, Syreeta. These are these things called F-stops and shutter speeds). I also "enjoyed" abortion columnist Jessica Valenti's recent piece in which she mentioned that her friends carry tote bags bearing the slogan "Lord, give me confidence of a mediocre white man." ...but I digress...
The intercept is an interesting read. While it certainly has a very strong point of view, you can be sure that they're not working for "The Man".
BTW, someone where mentioned the Washington Post. Have a look at this before you tout WP as unbiased: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/oil-lobby-paid-washingto...
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration.
There are some Republicans who continue to criticize trump freely, after he won the nomination, even if some of these might still prefer him to Hillary Clinton.
Though some republicans would probably interpret almost any criticism as bias.
Did you mean most republicans or just at least some?
Maybe you meant things that criticize republican politicians as a group? To me, that seems likely to be more true.
Am I talking about most Republicans? That I don't know. I haven't conducted a poll to see how many Republicans have that mentality. Certainly anyone who supports trump or watches Fox News on a regular basis has that mentality --and that's a lot of people!
I realize I'm going off topic here but sooner or later we have to confront this issue. Reality is not subjective. If our society can't learn how to parse reality we will never be able to unfuck ourselves.
Best thing to do is to read news from left and right media or in country relations, say US and Russia, from both sides. Usually the truth lies somewhere between.
There are more than two viewpoints.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed." -Probably not Mark Twain
Edit: also, check out The Guardian and The Intercept.
I consider Frontline to be neutral long-form analysis.
Other than that, use the basic news programs as aggregators and dig for yourself. Nobody's gonna do it for you. The problem is less bias than it is differences in opinion of what makes a story interesting. Trainwrecks are interesting, so everything is a trainwreck.
Bad news is there is no unbiased news.
Good news it is pretty easy to train yourself to see bias and remove/ignore it. And once you do reading the news becomes a lot faster. As you can skip sections or entire articles below the headline that are clearly opinions masquerading as news.
Lastly, it won't be breaking news, but for many bigger events there is a wikipedia that can be a surprisingly accurate and unbiased account.
I think the best thing to do is to get news from multiple sources (at least 3). The truth is somewhere in between.
You have to understand that for a news story to be unbiased you have to report just the fact, e.g. "Bombing in Alepo, 13 dead". However, that's not even considered reporting for most people, since they lack the context: Where is Alepo, why is important, who bombed them? The moment you put context on a reality that is so complex, you're starting to putting upfront your biases. Even referencing a US-based institution vs a Chinese or Russian based institution is a form of rather strong bias.
So since everyone is biased what we can do to reach a balanced compromised is the following:
* Make sure we understand where the author comes from[2].
* Accept the fact that we don't know, hence remain open to other possibilities/interpretation
* Try (and you have to try hard...) to look for the truth. Most of us, read the publications that are ideologically aligned with our beliefs. That doesn't help much, as we already know the strong arguments for our case.
Some high quality publications in my view are:
* The New York Times * The Atlantic * The New Yorker
[1] In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality, URL: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Framing_(social_sciences)
[2] I still remember the WSJ presenting the saviour of miners in South American as a win of capitalism while it was, by all means, the exact opposite. It was companies-do-what-they-do who put them in that situation, plus all the tech that powered the machines that saved them, were founded by public research.
On a good week, I find myself thinking it's one of the more important shows around, right now.
The podcast is quite convenient to grab. Try a couple of weeks' worth, as individual shows can vary a bit as to content and presentation, depending upon the week and what they are covering.
But I think you need lots of primary sources close to the action, like people, expect them all to be biased towards their own situation, synthesize those reports together.
War propaganda is a big part of regular news everywhere including the US.
Google News is the best for overall quick, algorithmic look at world events.
I like Washington Post, The Economist, and Deadspin.
If you're worried about bias, my assumption is you want to see a particular bias. Thinking critically about the information you receive is vastly more important than getting unbiased information.
If you always get time from a single clock, you won't recognize when that clock drifts. If two clocks don't agree, then you know one of them is wrong. Are you only looking at one clock?
Also, no one watches news anymore. That's barbaric.
I recommend reading or watching press briefings at the State Department and White House, and take the journalists questions more seriously than the Press Offices' answers. Josh Earnest at the head of the White House Press Office has bragged about creating echo chambers in the US domestic press - and it's true that these press briefings are where most "establishment" news outlets get their narrative take on ongoing events.
Taking the questions more seriously than the answers allows you to understand the criticisms, concerns and complexities in ongoing situations - rather than the spin that comes out of Public Relations talk.
Then, I would recommend watching C-SPAN for particular legislation and events you are interested in. It's very easy to see their schedule - they have it posted online.
For understanding policy considerations, I recommend watching panels and reading reports from "Washington Thinktanks". These centers are often "track two" political outlets, meaning that they are direct interactions between US academics and officials with academics and officials from abroad, while they are outside official duties and obligations. Nothing gets decided in these thinktanks, but many ideas percolate here, and ideas that are happening behind closed doors cast shadows on "track two" conversations.
Take care when picking thinktanks. They have different political and foreign "allegiances" and are often collections of retired and influential people with particular perspectives. I would recommend sampling between a few of them.
For news, take care to avoid getting news exclusively from domestic sources and also exclusively from allied sources. Al Jazeera, for example, is owned and operated by the government of Qatar - a US ally. You will see different takes on world events from Al Jazeera, but you will not see narrative or supporting information for events that hurt joint American and Qatari initiatives. Sky News and the BBC are of course similar.
The Guardian and Der Speigel did the best jobs covering the actual content of the Snowden disclosures (even though the British Government infiltrated and censored that coverage eventually), so I have grown fonder of them recently.
I would recommend picking up a few "frindge" outlets, such as "The Intercept" or following the ACLU, so that internal civil rights controversies make the public feed - as they often do not on domestic and allied information publications.
Finally it's incredibly important to read source materials. That means reading the Snowden Disclosures, the Pentagon Papers, the CIA Torture Documents, the DNC Leaks, etc yourself. These controversial news items are too important to have your opinion colored by someone else's summary.
It's best if you also read proposed legislation, or at least check the sections that are referred to by various outlets.
Know that there are state and non-state actors actively trying to color the perception and distort the facts on certain issues. The Obama Administration infamously censored the Ferguson protests and hacked the Associated Press to determine the identity of sources leaking information about the proposed Iran Deal (just for example). National Security Journalists have been caught time and time again reporting stories with slant directly provided by US intelligence agencies (Ken Dilanian, Judith Miller, etc). Major establishment outlets chose terminology such as "Bulk Collection" during the Snowden Disclosures rather than using the more accurate but more controversial "Mass Surveillance."
It's difficult to make suggestions for sources of information because no source or combination of sources should determine your opinion. You have to act, as much as you can in your limited amount of time and energy, like your own investigative reporter.
I think articles + discussion can help in ways to weed out bias (though it can certainly go the other way as well).
I've gone so far as to redirect a bunch of news sites that I habitually frequent to 127.0.0.1 in my /etc/hosts file.