Discussion
I think it is a little bit impossible, yes.
If you asked me 5 years ago I would have said that it would be the likes of Facebook but with the way Facebook now analysis everything it is a lot harder to find anything in your news feed that is unbiased. If you like a lot of groups about the green party for example then the algorithm that works out what to show you will see that connection and prioritise showing you pro green party news pieces.
Its the same with a Google search where the same brilliant algorithm that brings you things it thinks you would be interested in based on your location, previous searches, viewing habits etc will also bring you news stories it thinks you would be interested in and this could then mean its biased to the thinking of certain areas or what you have looked at previously.
The way the internet has changed to help us is making it a lot harder for it to show us unbiased news pieces. Your best bet I think would be to find a small time journalist that makes a point of being unbiased and reports on things...but then a one man band is not going to be able to report on everything so their sources are going to come from biased places at times...so then your back to square one unless you trust them to do some very in depth digging.
If you asked me 5 years ago I would have said that it would be the likes of Facebook but with the way Facebook now analysis everything it is a lot harder to find anything in your news feed that is unbiased. If you like a lot of groups about the green party for example then the algorithm that works out what to show you will see that connection and prioritise showing you pro green party news pieces.
Its the same with a Google search where the same brilliant algorithm that brings you things it thinks you would be interested in based on your location, previous searches, viewing habits etc will also bring you news stories it thinks you would be interested in and this could then mean its biased to the thinking of certain areas or what you have looked at previously.
The way the internet has changed to help us is making it a lot harder for it to show us unbiased news pieces. Your best bet I think would be to find a small time journalist that makes a point of being unbiased and reports on things...but then a one man band is not going to be able to report on everything so their sources are going to come from biased places at times...so then your back to square one unless you trust them to do some very in depth digging.
Yeah good luck with that
ymwoods said:
I think it is a little bit impossible, yes.
If you asked me 5 years ago I would have said that it would be the likes of Facebook but with the way Facebook now analysis everything it is a lot harder to find anything in your news feed that is unbiased. If you like a lot of groups about the green party for example then the algorithm that works out what to show you will see that connection and prioritise showing you pro green party news pieces.
Its the same with a Google search where the same brilliant algorithm that brings you things it thinks you would be interested in based on your location, previous searches, viewing habits etc will also bring you news stories it thinks you would be interested in and this could then mean its biased to the thinking of certain areas or what you have looked at previously.
The way the internet has changed to help us is making it a lot harder for it to show us unbiased news pieces. Your best bet I think would be to find a small time journalist that makes a point of being unbiased and reports on things...but then a one man band is not going to be able to report on everything so their sources are going to come from biased places at times...so then your back to square one unless you trust them to do some very in depth digging.
facebook is incredibly dangerous and has a lot to answer for, I understand even the owners behind the likes of facebook and Google have acknowledged what they do is problematic.If you asked me 5 years ago I would have said that it would be the likes of Facebook but with the way Facebook now analysis everything it is a lot harder to find anything in your news feed that is unbiased. If you like a lot of groups about the green party for example then the algorithm that works out what to show you will see that connection and prioritise showing you pro green party news pieces.
Its the same with a Google search where the same brilliant algorithm that brings you things it thinks you would be interested in based on your location, previous searches, viewing habits etc will also bring you news stories it thinks you would be interested in and this could then mean its biased to the thinking of certain areas or what you have looked at previously.
The way the internet has changed to help us is making it a lot harder for it to show us unbiased news pieces. Your best bet I think would be to find a small time journalist that makes a point of being unbiased and reports on things...but then a one man band is not going to be able to report on everything so their sources are going to come from biased places at times...so then your back to square one unless you trust them to do some very in depth digging.
There aren’t many publishers who don’t willingly distort for financial or political gain. Your modern services such as Facebook and google are probably among the worst for being famed with fabricated information and advertorials as they are effectively unregulated.
If you want information that is the most likely to be true and undistorted then Reuters, Bloomberg and the FT are three places worth considering.
If you want information that is the most likely to be true and undistorted then Reuters, Bloomberg and the FT are three places worth considering.
The Dangerous Elk said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Do you want genuinely unbiased? BBC is as close as you're going to get.
Or do you want your own biases confirmed?
Really ?, it is a bent as you can get on opinion, they even admit it themselves.Or do you want your own biases confirmed?
rolex said:
where can you get it? Impossible?
Depends on what you mean. A fair few complain of bias when what they really want are their own biases confirmed back to them. If you just want 'facts' without any discussion / background then it would be pretty dry and anyway, the very act of choosing what is 'news' conveys its own bias.Best to avoid Facebook and read a selection of the 'quality' end of the press and make your own mind up. Plenty of different news channels with different perspectives if you prefer the TV.
Facebook can be a very good source - not others posts, but their news section.
It'll return a wide range of stories on the same news event, including national and local sources. Reading a few of those different reports on the same story tends to give a fairly balanced view (eg read Huffington Post & Fox News - then the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle).
It'll return a wide range of stories on the same news event, including national and local sources. Reading a few of those different reports on the same story tends to give a fairly balanced view (eg read Huffington Post & Fox News - then the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle).
We are well served by our journalists in this country, but poorly served by our newspapers. All of the latter have political agendas which they push blatantly. They are controlled only by somewhat lax laws and even these can only be accessed by those with support or money. Most of them are politically motivated.
The common theme is that everything is politics. You can't avoid it. To suggest that you can look at various outlets and then come to an unbiased conclusion is obviously wrong.
Our TV news is governed by licence. That does not mean it is unbiased but merely that it has to be balanced.
I anyone thinks they know then they are kidding themselves. The best we can do is make educated guesses.
Talk to those who were there, in the news so to speak, and you will get different opinions. If there's no CCTV then there's little hope of knowing.
Journalists go to the front line of wars and incidents and take a camera with them. But even so, there are limitations normally. They stay on one side of the line.
The only certain thing in this world with regards news is that if anyone comes to a conclusion going on what they read, they are wrong.
The common theme is that everything is politics. You can't avoid it. To suggest that you can look at various outlets and then come to an unbiased conclusion is obviously wrong.
Our TV news is governed by licence. That does not mean it is unbiased but merely that it has to be balanced.
I anyone thinks they know then they are kidding themselves. The best we can do is make educated guesses.
Talk to those who were there, in the news so to speak, and you will get different opinions. If there's no CCTV then there's little hope of knowing.
Journalists go to the front line of wars and incidents and take a camera with them. But even so, there are limitations normally. They stay on one side of the line.
The only certain thing in this world with regards news is that if anyone comes to a conclusion going on what they read, they are wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff