MovieChat Forums > Politics > An objective, unbiased news source.

An objective, unbiased news source.

... does one exist? Going back and forth between Fox news and CNN is getting tiresome. Hyperbole from both sides. Does journalism exist anymore or are there only activists left in the field of news?

What's a good objective, unbiased news source that you know of? Thanks in advance.



Nice! Thanks, elcamino


Your best suggestion is a Trumpbot circle jerk? Lol.


So what do you suggest?


Of course! Newspapers and stations buy their news from news services whose goal is to be as unbiased as possible. Only later do newspapers and stations put their "spin" on the purchased news.

Great source for unbiased news:
Associated Press
Agence France Presse

You can find many more on this site which reviews factual reporting history and biases of different sites. Sometimes I like to read different viewpoints as long as it's factual.


Wow. Thanks for the well written and informative post. I will be checking all of them out :)


You're welcome.


Actually Keelai just listed three anachronistic, old media wire outfits notorious for having a very leftist bias, and one rabidly partisan propaganda smear site that misleadingly calls itself "mediabiasfactcheck". In fact, contrary to his claim, I've seen numerous smaller city papers that ostensibly have a "conservative" editorial page have a completely left wing hard news A section because with smaller staffs they typically just fill it with mostly unchanged AP articles.

To answer your question we (by which I mean the modern human race) don't really have a news media. We have various propaganda outfits.

The closest I've seen to unbiased news coverage is on C-SPAN, and that's mostly because it's usually point the camera and shoot without commentary of their own, but it does seem like they've tried to be fair over the years in topic/event selection and on some of their interview shows (Brian Lamb was particularly awesome, but has unfortunately retired).

On Fox News I'll say that it's important to distinguish between their opinions shows, which usually have conservative leaning anchors, and their hard news coverage. The latter used to be so fair and balanced that you couldn't tell the personal politics of their reporters, except for Shephard Smith, the one reporter there who would routinely inject unprofessional editorial opinions into his segments, and since he's left wing was the one FNC reporter Democrats said they liked. The past couple of years have seen Rupert Murdoch's liberal sons increasingly assert control over the network in accordance with their stated desire of wanting to gradually turn it into another CNN.

While still not as bad as their competitors, FNC's hard news division has lurched into a leftist bias and typically follows the liberal media's lead on coverage (e.g. saying "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal alien"; Often selecting the same story coverage priorities and tone as NBC/CNN/CBS/ABC), instead of striking an independent tone as they did during the Roger Ailes era. They apparently feel they can keep their audience during this process by keeping the aforementioned conservative opinion hosts, but Fox News is doomed long term unless Rupert decides to not leave the network to his sons.


Maybe this was already answered but I saying if not asking wasn't Reuters a Russian government funded news source?


No, it's not. Reuters is a global news service headquartered in the UK.

"Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
Founded in 1851, Reuters is the world’s leading international multimedia news agency.

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180

RT is the Russian news source. It's a propaganda machine:

Reasoning: Russian Propaganda, Conspiracy, Lack of Transparency, Some Fake News
Country: Russia
World Press Freedom Rank: Russia 148/180

Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, promotion of conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks and a lack of author transparency.

RT News is owned by ANO “TV-Novosti”, which is funded by the Russian Government. The network is funded through advertising as well as 307 million USD from the Russian Government as of 2016.


why did you run away in embarrassment??

"Is that the excuse for voting in a deranged corrupt Putin-loving autocrat? Trump is taking away your health care. Enjoy!"

No its reality. you seem to putting your own feelings and emotions into it way too much. I never voted trump, I never would. This doesn't mean I have to put reality aside in favor of these made-up ideas that tens of millions of voters are all identical.

"More pitiful excuses! If Bernie couldn't handle Trump's media saavy in 2016 when he was only a candidate, then he won't be able to handle it now with the weight of the presidency and hundreds of millions in funds. "

again. Reality > your made-up opinion based off nothing. LOL you are jumping around moving the goalpost constantly as your opinion gets destroyed as false.

"You're kidding right?
Trump is corrupt, bought few jobs back, takes millions of dollars form corrupt lobbyists, foreign governments and corporations. Many of his appointees are former lobbyists like the coal lobbyist who is ow running the EPA."

Do you know what "claims" means? holy crap man. you failed high school right? im not saying trump did do anything he said. or intended to. im saying he "CLAIMED TO"

so yes when TRUMP CLAIMS drain the swamp and stop the insider corruption. and Hillary didn't even claim she would do that. a large segment said "what do we have to lose. I know voting for Hilary won't change it because she won't even CLAIM to do it. ill take my gamble with Trump.

Yes and Hilary did win. THE POPULAR VOTE. who was on the ground in the midwest doing gigs and warning her? Bernie Sanders.

I feel like im talking to a mentally challenged 13 year old


I'm not sure if it's still like this, but during the Iraq War BBC News gave very good coverage. It seemed to be unbiased and just told you the facts.


They had a pannel where they were bashing Trump with ad hominems as opposed to reporting the event and/or news. But this was on a weekend, so it might have been a one-off. Ill give em another shot.


BBC is atrocious. As Is Reuters. And the AP. ABCNNBBCBS and the rest all report what each other says. They don’t investigate and verify.

When it comes to stories on the Trump administration 98% of their info comes from fake unnamed sources. 1 source gets the “blockbuster leak” on their morning conference call with the Democrat party, and they all run with it.

It’s how they lied to the world for 3 years about Trump Russia collusion and have still produced zero evidence.

It’s amazing the Democrat lemmings are never bothered by the fact they’re constantly lied to and mislead by their Democrat media.

You’ll get more truth from @realdonaldtrump

The best way to understand what’s going on is pay attention and get educated in modern politics. Find independent news sources that aren’t international conglomerates who’s #1 task is profits. Who aren’t made up of all ex Democrat operatives posing as regular guys like George Steffanopolis.


"You’ll get more truth from @realdonaldtrump"

President Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims As of Dec. 10, 2019, his 1,055th day in office.

Trump Fact checker:


Yeah I'm not on Twitter and if I was the president's feed would be the last place I'd go to for factual news, it's comical to suggest him. We live in a bat guano upside down world. Im wary of bias from all sources but especially the sole voice of one person. It would be the same for @realbobama or any politician/person. Scary ignorance with voting power is scary.


Yr killing me !!
All that guy does is blather misleading information for his peons to sort out.