List your Non-Biased News Sources

[Cow Poke]

I don't have any links to Breitbart but I will follow links provided by others to read stories there. So you are providing a discussion board service for me (thanks).

The one place I don't get news from anymore is television. I have drifted so far away from TV news that it is scary. So when I see people accusing others of getting all their news from Fox or CNN I can't relate at all. Not simply because of their biases, but because TV news is very slow (I can read faster than their delivery) and condensed.

Yeah, I'm in hotels and airports a lot (not nearly as much as I used to be) and it seems CNN 'owns' those venues, so I get plenty of CNN. Usually, I'll see a story from what I think is a pretty biased viewpoint, and will DuckDuckGo it to see what's really happening, checking both liberal and conservative sites.

I'd LOVE to know what everybody could agree was a "non-biased" site, like JimL referenced.

[Cow Poke]

An interesting example. Cowpoke zeroed in on the use of "fired" for the removal from a high profile job, you zeroed in on "damning evidence", on testimony which you posted strenuously to show how the evidence was not really damning evidence. And the difference between "improper" and "believe it was improper", when someone states the first, the second (believing it to be improper) is always implied! (example of basic deconstruction as a literary tool)

A variety of sources is one way to "balance" which assumes that one can arrive at some golden mean by increasing sources; it is an approach I admit I use on bible reading, using multiple translation to avoid translation bias.

But you didn't provide any definition of bias which could illuminate the subtle and hard to spot bias.

I "zerored in" on "fired" because I think that's an inaccurate description of what happened relative to military service.

If a Captain on a ship has a personality conflict with his XO, and he doesn't believe he has the XO's loyalty (critical on a warship), he can arranged to have that XO transferred to another ship or duty station. That's "firing" only in the euphemistic sense, but not in the actual "workplace" sense. If the guy doesn't lose pay, benefits, rank....

[simplicio]

I "zerored in" on "fired" because I think that's an inaccurate description of what happened relative to military service.

If a Captain on a ship has a personality conflict with his XO, and he doesn't believe he has the XO's loyalty (critical on a warship), he can arranged to have that XO transferred to another ship or duty station. That's "firing" only in the euphemistic sense, but not in the actual "workplace" sense. If the guy doesn't lose pay, benefits, rank....

And it is called a firing, especially when it is connected to some screw up! Only as a civilian does firing mean unemployment. If Vindman betrayed his chain of command, as some have argued here, then he really stepped on his male appendage big time and deserves to be fired from his posting.

My point stands, and you even inadvertently substantiated my point.

[Cow Poke]

And it is called a firing,

Because that makes better headlines.

especially when it is connected to some screw up! Only as a civilian does firing mean unemployment.

Only when the civilian is removed from the company that "fired" them. Vindman still works for the same "company" he was employed with before the "firing".

If Vindman betrayed his chain of command, as some have argued here,

Some, perhaps, not me.

then he really stepped on his male appendage big time and deserves to be fired from his posting.

Or "rotated out", since he still works for the "same company", just in a different "department".

My point stands, and you even inadvertently substantiated my point.

Only in your own mind.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, did he "fire" Vindman? Vindman still has a job, still maintains his rank, still maintains his salary and benefits... He was, in effect, released from an assignment, and moved to another. The official language would be "he was rotated back to his department".

I don't have a problem with calling it a firing since that's essentially what happened, although you're right, it does give the false impression that Vindman is headed for the unemployment line rather than a different assignment within in the military.

[Ronson]

Yeah, I'm in hotels and airports a lot (not nearly as much as I used to be) and it seems CNN 'owns' those venues, so I get plenty of CNN. Usually, I'll see a story from what I think is a pretty biased viewpoint, and will DuckDuckGo it to see what's really happening, checking both liberal and conservative sites.

I'd LOVE to know what everybody could agree was a "non-biased" site, like JimL referenced.

Newsy calls itself unbiased. Maybe it is, but it is video so I don't watch it.

[Sparko]

All I know is I generally avoid (because they are blocked) news sites who are behind pay walls, like NY Times and WaPo. I suggest if any of you want to provide a source or quote for your post, you avoid sites like that and find a similar story elsewhere. After all, nowadays there is no original reporting, people just copy each other's articles.

For example, CP linked to a WaPo article about a fake Trump video. I couldn't read it, so I did a google search on the keywords from the headline and found several similar articles that were not behind a paywall:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sidents-resort (which actually references a NYT article )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9154651.html (also referencing the NYT article)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...shown-n1065641 (guess who? NYT again!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wn-resort.html (sigh. NYT)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/polit...ral/index.html (NYT)

[Mountain Man]

I will seek out more stories through a Google search or on YouTube.

Google and YouTube have their own well documented biases and have even gone to the extreme of outright censorship.

[Cow Poke]

I don't have a problem with calling it a firing since that's essentially what happened, although you're right, it does give the false impression that Vindman is headed for the unemployment line rather than a different assignment within in the military.

EGGzackly. And not just a "different assignment", but by all accounts, "rotated back" to his unit from which he was temporarily assigned.

[Ronson]

Google and YouTube have their own well documented biases and have even gone to the extreme of outright censorship.

True. But I am looking for specific stories by this time so Bezo's biases are less effective. If I had to rely on Google or YouTube for new news stories or breaking news then I'd be in trouble, because they have the ability to filter news before I am aware of it.

[Sparko]

Also there is bias and then there is spin. A site can be biased liberal or conservative but report the facts. Or they can do that and add spin to the article.

For example of it: DivineOb was asking about a video of Trump waving his hands around during the National Anthem at his Superbowl Party. Various liberal biased sites posted the video which is a fact. Most of them added their own interpretation to it, which is spin. Fox news didn't seem to report on it at all, which is because they are biased conservatively.

[Cow Poke]

Also there is bias and then there is spin. A site can be biased liberal or conservative but report the facts. Or they can do that and add spin to the article.

For example of just bias. DivineOb was asking about a video of Trump waving his hands around during the National Anthem at his Superbowl Party. Various liberal biased sites posted the video which is a fact. Most of them added their own interpretation to it, which is spin. Fox news didn't seem to report on it at all, which is because they are biased conservatively.

Good points. Another factor in "spin" is assigning motive where motive isn't actually known. To state that "Wilson shot Johnson 5 times with a .357" could be an indisputable fact, but then to go on and ASSUME it's because "Johnson was black and Wilson was white", neglecting something like "at the time, Johnson was crawling in the window of Wilson's home with a sawed off shotgun"....

In this age of 24/7 competitive news, it seems far more important to get "a story out there" than it does to do the homework to collect the facts.

[Mountain Man]

...the difference between "improper" and "believe it was improper", when someone states the first, the second (believing it to be improper) is always implied! (example of basic deconstruction as a literary tool)

The difference between the two is significant.

"This is improper" implies an objective statement that is independent of personal opinion. "I believe this is improper" indicates a subjective statement that may or may not be grounded in fact.

Let's put it this way, in a debate, how would you respond to "You're wrong" versus "I believe you're wrong"?

[Mountain Man]

True. But I am looking for specific stories by this time so Bezo's biases are less effective. If I had to rely on Google or YouTube for new news stories or breaking news then I'd be in trouble, because they have the ability to filter news before I am aware of it.

During the 2016 campaign season, I was finding it increasingly difficult to find stories on Google using even very specific search terms, and I wasn't sure why. Then all the stuff came out about Google hand curating their search engine to give preference to their own political views, so I switched to Duck Duck Go.

[Mountain Man]

All I know is I generally avoid (because they are blocked) news sites who are behind pay walls, like NY Times and WaPo. I suggest if any of you want to provide a source or quote for your post, you avoid sites like that and find a similar story elsewhere. After all, nowadays there is no original reporting, people just copy each other's articles.

For example, CP linked to a WaPo article about a fake Trump video. I couldn't read it, so I did a google search on the keywords from the headline and found several similar articles that were not behind a paywall:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sidents-resort (which actually references a NYT article )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9154651.html (also referencing the NYT article)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...shown-n1065641 (guess who? NYT again!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wn-resort.html (sigh. NYT)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/polit...ral/index.html (NYT)

Which leads to another aggravating phenomenon where people will say "A number of outlets have reported such and such", giving the impression of some widespread consensus, when, in fact, they're just quoting the exact same source.