News & Politics

LIMom1105
Curious-Question for Conservatives About the News
October 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

So, many of you make it clear that you consider most news sources unfairly biased.  I'm curious--which news sources do you consider fair and unbiased (or least biased)?

 

Replies

  • Lacey14
    by Lacey14
    October 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM

    Right from the beginning of his first campaign, people have been weirdly ga-ga over this man.  I don't get it either.  He is not great at anything.  Not even adequate most of the time.  And many times, he has even been harmful.  There is nothing special about him, and yet the masses will follow him right over the cliff.  I was shocked at the number of people that showed up at his inauguration.  WHY?  It can't be because he is the first black president.  Sure that is great and all, but not to this level of idolatry.  The only answer I can think of, is because women find him romantic on some level, because he panders to them.   Others are just being true to their democratic ties.  I just don't get it, and I don't remember ever seeing anything like this before in America.

    Quoting Xlandria:


    Quoting LoveMyTrio:

    I don't think there is any "balanced" reporting that I've seen from any one station.  Even PBS seems biased.  I will say that I've never seen so many media outlets pine over a President like they do over Obama in my life.  You would think he cured cancer or was Elvis reincarnated.  They portray him in imagery as a savior or a King with a white or golden glow, and praise his pandering to the Hollywood soapbox egos.  No one seems to care that he shut out C-Span from the health care debate after promising to be the most tranparent administration in history.  No one seems to care that he's circumvented congress with executive fiat against the will of the people, or that he's fired CEO's of Companies he didn't own, and took over two of the largest private industries (auto and healthcare) to increase the government footprint of control.  No one cares about the increased domestic spying under Obama when it was such a huge deal under Bush, and the impending takeover of the internet and digital communications which he is aggressively pushing for through the FCC.  He bows to leaders that wish to wipe us off the map, and a good portion of the public adores him.  I just don't get it.  I think he and his entire socialism loving administration is dangerous.

    Another person who doesn't suffer from willful blindness. I find all of these passes and making excuses that people do for Obama very dangerous indeed. In fact I sometimes wonder what kind of spell or whatever that causes people to say it's all OK. I've said it before & I'll say it again, I seriously believe that Obama could shoot someone dead on the street, for no reason, and people will jump to his defense and before you know it, it's the dead innocent person who gets the blame. I can't even count the number of times I also asked someone, anyone to tell me exactly what it is that Obama has done to even try to improve the economy. I never get one single answer. After four years he & his followers are still spouting what he says he wants to do. This is the same crap he said 4 years ago. I don't think he plans to do one single thing. Sorry, I know this was OT, I just get so angry at how they don't get it.


  • Saerise
    by Saerise
    October 7, 2012 at 9:59 PM

    I probably trust my local station the most. I watch both Fox and MSNBC, along with the others here and there, because I can clearly see their bias, and I like to hear from both sides, per se. 

  • SallyMJ
    by SallyMJ
    October 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.



  • jaxTheMomm
    October 7, 2012 at 10:50 PM

    Can you cite an example in which factcheck and/or politifact seem to be untrue, and tell us why?

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.




  • SallyMJ
    by SallyMJ
    October 7, 2012 at 11:13 PM

    Way too many to quote. I hadn't been on those sites very long before I realized they were biased. Have been focusing on things since then that I actually want to remember.  :)


    Quoting jaxTheMomm:


    Can you cite an example in which factcheck and/or politifact seem to be untrue, and tell us why?

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.





  • jaxTheMomm
    October 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM

    So, that's a no then?

    The reason why those sites can be valuable is because they list every source.  You don't have to like their conclusion, but they list every single source and it's origins.  Then they leave it for you to read up and decide.

    That's not biased.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Way too many to quote. I hadn't been on those sites very long before I realized they were biased. Have been focusing on things since then that I actually want to remember.  :)


    Quoting jaxTheMomm:


    Can you cite an example in which factcheck and/or politifact seem to be untrue, and tell us why?

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.






  • SallyMJ
    by SallyMJ
    October 7, 2012 at 11:36 PM

    Not exactly. When you have someone who already is known to be biased, and they take a particular statement or allegation, and when they want to end up at a particular conclusion, they are going to shape it and evaluate it in a way that fits with their bias. They will ignore the truth and exaggerate what they think is false to back into the conclusion they wanted to reach. That is biased.

    Quoting jaxTheMomm:

    So, that's a no then?

    The reason why those sites can be valuable is because they list every source.  You don't have to like their conclusion, but they list every single source and it's origins.  Then they leave it for you to read up and decide.

    That's not biased.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Way too many to quote. I hadn't been on those sites very long before I realized they were biased. Have been focusing on things since then that I actually want to remember.  :)


    Quoting jaxTheMomm:


    Can you cite an example in which factcheck and/or politifact seem to be untrue, and tell us why?

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Quoting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.







  • jaxTheMomm
    October 8, 2012 at 12:03 AM

    I'm sorry, I'm a bit punchy tonight and need to go to bed.

    However, I thought I asked a pretty specific question.  I asked you for a specific example in which the dubunker sites we've mentioned have been wrong or at least in question, which you have stated is possible.

    I've asked twice now and you still haven't given us a specific example of the biased to which you are referring to.

    I've followed some of the stories they claim to debunk to the very end, and have yet to find anything that seems to be untrue, biased, or based in something that might not be true where they don't mark it as such.  And i try to be pretty honest with myself with that stuff.

    You are unable to provide me with a specific example; you only speak of biased.  Perhaps in the near future something they've stated that you think you might have proven otherwise will pop up.

    Also, the last time I looked up the funding for those sites, I was pretty comfortable with what I found as well as those foundations (Annenberg etc) as well as their history.  I don't just wipe it off as unjustifiable as the sources always seem to check out.

    I haven't been able to punch a hole in them thus far and I'm always looking for holes to punch.  Perhaps when something more fresh comes along you can point out what I may be missing. 

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Not exactly. When you have someone who already is known to be biased, and they take a particular statement or allegation, and when they want to end up at a particular conclusion, they are going to shape it and evaluate it in a way that fits with their bias. They will ignore the truth and exaggerate what they think is false to back into the conclusion they wanted to reach. That is biased.

    Quoting jaxTheMomm:

    So, that's a no then?

    The reason why those sites can be valuable is because they list every source.  You don't have to like their conclusion, but they list every single source and it's origins.  Then they leave it for you to read up and decide.

    That's not biased.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Way too many to quote. I hadn't been on those sites very long before I realized they were biased. Have been focusing on things since then that I actually want to remember.  :)


    Quoting jaxTheMomm:


    Can you cite an example in which factcheck and/or politifact seem to be untrue, and tell us why?

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    I wouldn't say completely untrue - but extremely left-leaning so as to make its conclusions untrustworthy and unfair. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right two times a day." You have to wade through so much distortion and demagoguery, that purports to be true, but is very misleading. Occasionally will say a Republican statement is true, so as to appear fair. Nitpicks Republican statements so it can say they are "Partly False" or "Pants on Fire" (or whatever number of Pinocchios), while calling Democrat statements "True" or "Mostly True".   

    I used both sites myself for awhile, at different times, until I realized they were biased.

    Qu*oting Citygirlk:

    Are you saying that the facts from facts check are.biased, as in untrue.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.


    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.


    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 


    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.


    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.








  • jacquih1126
    October 8, 2012 at 7:48 AM

    Actually, Factcheck.org and Politifact don't "lean" ~ they are simply facts and will fact check dems as well as repubs. If you feel they lean left, perhaps its b/c the "right" does most of the lying. Hmmm.........

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    FYI - FactCheck.org and Politifact are both left-leaning. 

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center of U of Pennsylvania, which owns FactCheck.org, used to be a conservative organization that turned liberal when the couple died and their estate passed on to the new owners.

    We conservatives have to do our own fact checking.

    Quoting LIMom1105:

    Thanks for the replies!  I'm curious, especially since so many thought the RNC was fair and unbiased. Of course not, neither is the DNC.

    Myself, of all the big news sources on TV, I do think CNN is probably the best. Certainly not unbiased, but probably least so (of the biggies again).  BBC I like since they do cover stories about international affairs that get little airtime here. 

    I do like factcheck.org to check candidate claims.

    Fox and MSNBC are entertainment for me, both are extreme in their views.  Morning Joe is more balanced, but it's all opinion, and I don't like the way Mika gets shouted down again and again.



  • imamomzilla
    October 8, 2012 at 7:55 AM

     CSPAN and Open Secrets are unbiased.

    I also enjoy these online site: Free Republic, American Thinker, Town Hall, and Heritage.

News & Politics