Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • A conversation with a good friend the other day about what was happening in the world and his viewpoint and opinion was very one-sided, mostly because he has FOX news on all the time.

      Don't judge him too harshly!

      He recited a few things that were outrageous and then pointed me towards a video on YouTube that was just as bad as Plandemic in my eyes (which has been taken down, but the remains of the Cake conversation is still up, click the link)

      This...

      Before I replied (this was all via text BTW) I search for Janet Ossebaard and found this interview

      Not sure which is scarier her documentary or her interview?

      I then resumed the texts, and asked "what he thought of Janet Ossebaard? "

      "Who?"

      He has no idea who she was, "the person who wrote the documentary and narrated it!"

      "Oh!"

      I then asked him where he got his information to make me want to send me this, he described it as a concise version of what he had seen on Fox News.

      "Did you look for any objective opinions about this?"

      "No, because all news is biased!"

      This we agreed on, but some not as much as others as a Business Insider found out when they (allegedly, because how do we know it's true) polled a bunch of people, FOX was found to be the most biased

      So back to the title, Where or from Who, do you think gives the best unbiased news?

      In the US? or Worldwide??

    • All news media is biased even if it tries not to be. It’s important to read a variety of media outlets so at not to suffer too much from the echo chamber phenomenon.

      I use media bias charts (like the one in my link that follows) to give me a rough idea of what I’m watching or listening to

    • In my view, bias is the wrong thing to chase and being factual is the right thing. Bias is a personal judgement in the eye of the beholder, as we saw from the charts in the Business Insider article.

      I was fascinated with a test done a few years ago where they tested consumers of different news sources about what they knew about basic facts like who is the Secretary of State. PBS consumers were on top, along with The New York Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

      You might say, probably correctly, that WSJ is biased to the right and NYT to the left. But they both try to be factual and post corrections when they get facts wrong. And isn’t it good for us to get views from both the left and right?

      In contrast, FOX was found to be least factual and viewers the least informed. I think the whole world saw that with their Covid coverage. I wouldn’t care that they are so right-biased if they were factually correct about topics like Hydroxychloroquine. In fact, Chris Wallace’s recent interview on FOX of Trump is being lauded for its factual accuracy.

    • Thanks for that, it kind of proves a point that it appears I was reasonably correct about, because my rebuttal to him and who he should compare Fox With are all the ones in green box, the least biased.

      His response was I was such a liberal and they were more biased than Fox, a lot more.

      Which then leads to back to conspiracy theories and then what pops up in my feed, this from a couple of days ago...

    • Yes facts, agreed, we are now in a position probably better than any time in history to clarify facts, and it is the least done thing...because the 'share' button is easier to click

    • I think it would be more accurate to say that the commentary on the WSJ is biased towards the right. People from their news department quite frequently express the sentiment of disgreeing with the opinions of the commentators.

      After Bezos purchased it and before Trump began his campaign, the Washington Post had become pretty neutral but that has not been as true for the last five years. (One would have to be wiser than I am to figure out how to be neutral during these last five years and still report the news.)

    • But each side can’t agree on the facts. That’s exactly the problem. How do you come to a common understanding or an agreement of sorts if you can’t even agree on any common facts? Trump can’t go soon enough and good luck repairing the damage after he goes. If he loses massively you’ll have more hope. If he loses by a little then the lasting damage will linger for decades is my guess. Then wait for his news station when it comes out. Trump news will be a festering conspiracy divisive generating hate machine.

    • Chris Wallace is the only one on FOX who actually tries to do journalism now that Shepard Smith left to join NBC. FOX I feel is less about accurate news and more about spinning thing in favor of conservatives. Even if the facts aren’t on their side.

    • Winning the argument (or making it fuzzy) has become more important than the truth.

      I'm hoping for a landslide

      Remember when so many were saying they would leave the US if Trump won? Well I have dual citizenship so I can make that statement and do it easily if need be.

      ...but where?

    • I actually feel BBC does a pretty good job of not being too biased. It helps that the British don’t have a dog in the fight of American politics.

    • I said a similar thing to a friend recently. She is from Ukraine/Ireland and said she doesn’t trust them but then overseas news may be less biased. Seems so to me.

    • I don't think Bezos micromanages the Post and I think the shift started before the situation became personal.

      But as I said before, I wouldn't know how a news media outlet could maintain neutrality at the present time.

    • Yeah, not a whole lot to complain about with BBC, imo. I’m a lefty, so I love MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and all that jazz, but even I’ll admit they’re left biased. That’s what makes BBC refreshing, imo.

    • Well, to a certain extent, reporters need to call balls and strikes. If something is fundamentally wrong and unethical, it is what it is.

    • most people who buy news media companies want to influence what they say. Who wouldn’t want their own message or ideas to be promoted? It’s admirable to give the news crew latitude and tell them to be as unbiased as possible but... Jeff Daniels in The Newsroom does a decent job of showing how bias is involved in news. The cutting of good journalism due to social media clicks is a real concern as I see it.

    • I use this app called Ground News. Quite wonderful. They take major events and compare headlines from different leaning media houses.

      The classification of the publication’s political leaning isn’t their own. They refer to a third party index. Details on their website.

      I went on a similar search of an unbiased news outlet and quickly realized there is no such thing. So I choose the next best option. Try to consume conflicting points of view on a topic and you’re left with a fairly neutral understanding of the subject.

      I also like their weekly newsletter that tries to reveal stories you might have missed if you consume left wing news... and vice versa. There are stories that just don’t fit the narrative of Fox News, or CNN... and they ignore it.

    • True. Facts are more important than the political leaning used to cover them.

      But political leanings also effect the editor’s desk. Some stories just don’t get covered because they don’t fit the narrative.

      That’s equally dangerous IMHO

    • Personally I'm too old for Canadian winters but as the climate warms Canada might become the new Spain in a few years . . .

    • There is a belief in my liberal town that facts have a liberal bias. So if you report the news factually, you will be cast as left leaning.

      In the conservative areas my extended family lives in, the belief is that only the president and Fox tell the truth.

      I want to say this, in a more diplomatic way, but it would only alienate the fam, so I swallow it: