What are your sources for unbiased, factual information?

[Zero3]

I ain't even lying, it's mmo-champion! I remember a thread with a dude being assaulted by muslims and he was made to look a victim then a few responses later there's another video of him preaching hate against them , so there's your reason and the main video failed to send a fake message.
Another recent video is of the dude that exposed youtube's CP recomendation flaw and caused sort of an adpocalipse v 2.0 then some responses later it shows that dude is a sleeazy guy who event hit on a minor in his vid and he was just salty for his website not getting traction.
So yeah ...i like you mmo-champ!

[Alydael]

I go straight to the source. Most news that you see the "talking heads" report on is based on an actual event, they just inject their opinion into the facts and report only what supports their opinion (and conveintly leave out what doesn't).

For example if the event was a speech- I actually go watch the speech (most are on youtube). You get a much better sense of what the speaker was trying to say that way. If you really want to blow your mind- and see just how fake the news is- watch the speech (in full) then watch the reporting on it.

It will blow your mind! The reporters aren't even being close to honest. They really only have themselves to blame for the mistrust of the media- they fully earned it.

If it is news about legislation or a bill- that is all matter of public record and you can find it an read it.

If it is news about a debate on the floor of congress or something akin- that is usually on cspan, so you cant watch that too.

If it is an event in a foreign country- there is usually a blotter with just the facts on AP or Reuters. Just make sure it si the "blotter" and not someone's report based on the blotter.

If you want the truth, it's out there: just don't be lazy and hope to get the truth through talking points being told to you by someone else. You won't find the truth that way......

[Naramag]

FYI

The OP was not talking about politics. He was talking about hobbies / passions / self-improvement, etc. He laments that he cannot find a way to distinguish between clickbait, flavor-of-the-month trends, and genuine expertise.

Okay, to answer that: I don't need unbiased information for my hobbies. I need Inspiration. Pinterest does that pretty good. After the initial Inspiration, I search the internet for anything that helps. I don't need the "right way" to do something, I need a working way.
Self-improvement is a concept I don't get. Maybe there's a language barrier here. I understand it as "being a better person". If that's the case, I don't need anyone to tell me, how I can be a better person. I am content with how I am and how I live my life. If am not content, I change things until I am content with it. Maybe that's a thing that comes with age, but I don't need anyones approval for my existence or way of life.

[Mormolyce]

I actually use google and some fairly crappy news aggregators (need to find a better one) to survey active news, but then I check multiple sources for specific stories.

Most of the typical primary news outlets have already been mentioned - AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, etc. There's a few reliable Australian ones too.

I don't have one to be honest I mostly just follow funny stories I find on /pol/

We noticed aha.

CNN and MSNBC least biased? What in the name of fuckery is this?

They rate highly for factual reporting. They do have some editorial bias (nothing on the level of say, Fox News but still), but you need to separate reporting from editorial content.

I wouldn't rate CNN too highly, not because of any bias but because it's a commercial cable network. MSNBC is a little better but has the same issue. Honestly aside from maybe PBS, a lot of US news is pretty trashy (again, referring to how commercial it is, not bias, different issue). CNN isn't even the worst offender, not by a mile.

[Rotted]

EDIT: I appreciate the news sources you have all provided but it's not news sources I am interested in. I want to know what sites you guys use for your hobbies/passions/self improvement, ect, that doesn't just report trends, and studies, and all that other garbage like it's now the best way to do something or the best way to live your life. And all that other garbage that's like click bait in article form like "This one little hack we're teaching you will skyrocket your performance." Fuck off with all that, I'm not here for quick fixes to simple problems, I want authentic information that's been tested and proven. Not this weeks trend. And as of right now, I am having trouble finding that.

I know nothing can be truly 100% biased free, but I am tired of all these misleading videos and articles being like "Oh do this because this study just done has concluded that X is equal to Y." Was the article peer reviewed? Have the results been duplicated else where? WE DON'T FUCKIN KNOW! But we're going to report the information like we do. And we're not going to include the source 'cause our word is good enough.

Basically, I am tired of people giving out life advice/general advice based on a bunch of "He said, she said" anecdotal evidence and unproven research.

And I haven't even touched on the blatant distortion of information but that's an episode of outrage for a different day.

Most of my hobbies are covered by scientific journals. So a quick google scholar search to find a relevant article and I'm sorted. Bonus if it's behind a paywall, that just means it's been scrutinized more.

This is why when I come to this site 9/10 if I comment on something in an area, I've pulled that answer from journals. Then proceed to laugh when it's called BS or wrong.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Any news source who engages in opinion, clickbaiting, flamebaiting, vagueries, obfuscation and leading questions etc is an illegitimate news source.

The truth is you have to use multiple sources. You have to distill facts from rhetoric and agenda. You need to have a system in place where you can discern with critical thinking what is fantastical and appetizing versus what is possible.

Reality is often disappointing. Case in point, why do you spin this fantastical fairy tale where Donaldo Trumpaldo is some super russian spy who orchestrated a masterful cover up and sabotage campaign?

Why is that somehow more believable to you than the fact that he is just a boring regular capitalist crook?

[Dejiko]

Don`t have any specific sites i value more than others, i deem the worth of an article by what`s written in the headline.

[Has lost its way]

I actually use google and some fairly crappy news aggregators (need to find a better one) to survey active news, but then I check multiple sources for specific stories.

Most of the typical primary news outlets have already been mentioned - AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR, etc. There's a few reliable Australian ones too.



We noticed aha.



They rate highly for factual reporting. They do have some editorial bias (nothing on the level of say, Fox News but still), but you need to separate reporting from editorial content.

I wouldn't rate CNN too highly, not because of any bias but because it's a commercial cable network. MSNBC is a little better but has the same issue. Honestly aside from maybe PBS, a lot of US news is pretty trashy (again, referring to how commercial it is, not bias, different issue). CNN isn't even the worst offender, not by a mile.

Fair enough but I don't try to hide my stripes everything should be amusing to someone.

[HumbleDuck]

Ap, bbc, wp, ...

[Themerlin]

US public broadcasting is of high quality and does a good job reporting on international things, in great detail. For some odd reason, it doesn't seem popular with people below 40 or so. It's really sad because the amount and depth of programming it has to offer is pretty amazing.

Compared to others it is sub par.

I rely more on other sources for more precise international news.
If I wanted US news...sure, but even then I find the coverage of other international sources more unbiased.

[Dinousek]

The Chart, version 1 - https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-re...ind-the-chart/

And a link to the most recent version - https://www.adfontesmedia.com

[Methodd]

Independant journalists on twitter and local news.

Used to follow reuters and AP but the editorial slant and the combination of ignoring stories/amplifying others based on politics has been pretty evident in the past few years.

[derpkitteh]

Tim pool isn't unbiased sources he is wrong a lot actually.

disagreeing with his opinions doesn't mean he's wrong.

usually, he just reads articles and gives his take on things, which agree with more than i don't, but there's definitely some things i don't agree with him on.

[Northy]

https://knowherenews.com/

[roboscorcher]

Fox is much less biased than MSNBC or CNN. Anyone who says otherwise is insane. Please show me a Fox news anchor saying "This is it. This is our lives now. It's not some nightmare, it's real" When Obama won. Please show me a Fox news host saying "This is a BLACKlash. People only voted for Obama because he was black" (vs this is a Whitelash) Doesn't exist, so you can't show me. BTW, suggesting Obama may not have been born here in a discussion is not the same as ranting like a maniac because you are so upset you can't remain professional.

Fox is biased toward the right, but if there was a scale, it's like 40-50% biased toward the right, where is CNN/MSBNC are 95% biased toward the left. It isn't even close. So yeah, Fox news it is. I do watch some CNN/MSNBC just to laugh at how insane they are.

Clearly you have forgotten the outrage machine that was Obama-era Fox News:
- War on Christmas
- Obama puts Dijon Mustard on a hotdog
- Waterboarding is no big deal
- Obama makes us look weak
- Trickle-down economics

Someone recently made a reel of Fox hosts criticizing "the president". All their criticisms were made for Obama but fit Trump far better.

[Cyi]

Wall Street Journal, especially if you ignore the opinion pieces. It is consistently ranked the most factual in terms of its reporting.

[Deletedaccount1]

I read Drudge every morning. Not that biased I think because he knows readers want to read important stories even if they don't agree with their preconceived ideology.

[schwank05]

None, I watch what I enjoy watching and that is usually something with my personal bias included in it as well I am a Subscriber to Blaze Tv and enjoy most on there.

Louder with Crowder
The Daily Wire
Joe Rogan Podcast
I like a bit of Tucker or Hannity every now and then as well.

[Eveningforest]

Compared to others it is sub par.

I rely more on other sources for more precise international news.
If I wanted US news...sure, but even then I find the coverage of other international sources more unbiased.

Stop trying to sound mysterious and name those sources. I am genuinely curious.

[Deletedaccount1]

None, I watch what I enjoy watching and that is usually something with my personal bias included in it as well I am a Subscriber to Blaze Tv and enjoy most on there.

Louder with Crowder
The Daily Wire
Joe Rogan Podcast
I like a bit of Tucker or Hannity every now and then as well.

Nice man. I really like the Andrew Klavan show.