The problem with 'neutral' news like the BBC is that their bias is more hidden and can be more insidious.

The generally Guardianista lefty filter that the BBC puts onto the news is in danger of becoming the consensus.

At least with Fox or CNN you know what your getting.

Originally Posted by IndianaDel

I would have to agree with Crabtastic, about PBS news Hour as a highly credible source.
The "News" networks are known to pander to the Biases of their (majority) viewers.
BBC America shot them selves in the foot, when they dropped their evening news broadcast. The "traditional" Networks here, I do not watch, as they are invariably banal.
The Daily Show, is news satire at its very best, how I do not watch that much at all either!

Have to agree about PBS, it certainly has the best news and current affairs on U.S. TV. There was also a German broadcaster that had a good English language news programme, can't remember its name.

I always preferred the 'Colbert Report' over 'The Daily Show' but neither was as cutting as something like 'Have I Got News for You'.

It's best to dip into sources across the political spectrum all have interests and biases.

Most US MSM sources have a softly liberal bias, this isn't any sort of conspiracy, it's more a factor of the sort of folks that are attracted to journalism, highly educated skeptics. I mean "liberal" in a US sense, they are well to the right of the European center, they tend to abhor anything even vaguely resembling a progressive social-democracy.

Refreshingly Fox News was set up to remedy this by taking a highly skewed editorial line rather than attempting the fatuous balance of most outlets. Like The Sun you'll find many of the journos working for it are liberal. Like that rag it's more an affair of rabble rousing entertainment than a serious news source and it plays to its audience prejudices very well.

None of them can really been relied on when the countries blood is up. It's the great liberal paper of record NYT and WaPo that led the charge into Iraq not Fox.

I'd recommend an occasional nibble at Al Jaz, Press TV and even the, timid, lick spittle BBC as a corrective.

Originally Posted by alib

It's best to dip into sources across the political spectrum all have interests and biases.

Most US MSM sources have a softly liberal bias, this isn't any sort of conspiracy, it's more a factor of the sort of folks that are attracted to journalism, highly educated skeptics. I mean "liberal" in a US sense, they are well to the right of the European center, they tend to abhor anything even vaguely resembling a progressive social-democracy.

Refreshingly Fox News was set up to remedy this by taking a highly skewed editorial line rather than attempting the fatuous balance of most outlets. Like The Sun you'll find many of the journos working for it are liberal. Like that rag it's more an affair of rabble rousing entertainment than a serious news source and it plays to its audience prejudices very well.

None of them can really been relied on when the countries blood is up. It's the great liberal paper of record NYT and WaPo that led the charge into Iraq not Fox.

I'd recommend an occasional nibble at Al Jaz, Press TV and even the, timid, lick spittle BBC as a corrective.

Good point. One of the key differences between conservatism and liberalism (in the classic sense, not the annoying American habit of using it as a codeword for leftyness) is that conservatives tend to view the world in black and white/ Manichean terms and liberals tend to see lots of shades of grey and complexity in the world. Perhaps unsurprisingly, neuroscientists have discovered that there is a correlation between how the parts of the brain that deal with fear are more highly developed in conservatives and the areas that deal with complexity are more developed with liberals. This is not a statement intended to extol the virtues of liberalism, per se. There are times and places where clarity of vision is essential to un-stall deliberations and decision-making and while liberalism is much more geared towards solving problems than learning to live with them, the presence of too much complexity often lends itself to a lot of hand-wringing.

Of course, the real beauty of conservatism is that its message is much more easily understood by low-information voters. Someone without the time or the inclination to pay lots of attention to something will typically choose to buy into the most simple answer, rather than one that is much more difficult to understand. This is why Reagan got so much traction with the line “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” It reinforces the notion that relying on instinct, rather than analysis, provides the best solution. It also explains why Herman Cain's 9-9-9 economic plan has done so well amongst primary voters as opposed to Romney's 60 point plan (or whatever it is), even though you will not find anyone who knows anything about economics who thinks the 9-9-9 plan would be anything but a complete clusterfuck if anyone actually tried to implement it.

So, in order to get ratings and, subsequently, to earn money, your interests are best served by: 1) Scaring people (people always pay closer attention when they think they're being threatened by something unfamiliar) and 2) Giving them nice, simple answers that they can understand, preferably involving a narrative that they are good and whatever it is out there is evil. The result is 99.9% of News Corp's output. (The other .1% tends to be tits.)

Russia Today is always good for a laugh, you western pig dogs

These guys are definitely taking sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrSL...e_gdata_player