• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Reliable News Agency

Most Reliable News Agency

  • MSNBC

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • FOX News

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • CNN

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • BBC

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Al-Jazeerah

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Le Monde

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Der Spiegel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NPR

    Votes: 12 27.9%
  • None of the Above

    Votes: 8 18.6%
  • The Colbert Report

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • Total voters
    43
UFO-blogger.com
 
Christian Science Monitor, though they are not the fastest.
 
All of the above. All major news agencies are pretty reliable in the sense that they will not fail to alert you about most consequential events, and to give key words enabling you to research any topic of interest. None of them are free of bias and spin, of course - but it is your job, as a sapient creature, to analyze and compare, and to form your own opinion.
 
"Most reliable" is a comparative term.

None of them are very reliable on their own. As Crylyek said, it is up to the sapient (or perhaps semi sapient) creatures watching to compare and evaluate.

The non sapient among us like whichever one supports our own biases.

That said, the most reliable of the unreliable sources from which we choose is probably CNN.
 
Christian Science Monitor, though they are not the fastest.

I have a hierarchy depending on what the topic is, but Christian Science monitor is usually a very good source for international issues that require a little thought. NPR, BBC and others I commonly use. The current shooting situations I checked both Fox and CNN. At this point the spin hasnt started...The way I mainly check out stories in the US is to find a local news source. Generally it gives you the facts, by the time Faux or the RW sites get hold of an issue you cant even google it anymore.
 
Weekend Update. Saturday nights/Sunday mornings at midnight on NBC.
 
I have a hierarchy depending on what the topic is, but Christian Science monitor is usually a very good source for international issues that require a little thought. NPR, BBC and others I commonly use. The current shooting situations I checked both Fox and CNN. At this point the spin hasnt started...The way I mainly check out stories in the US is to find a local news source. Generally it gives you the facts, by the time Faux or the RW sites get hold of an issue you cant even google it anymore.

One could say the same for LW news sources. The problem isn't the lean as much as it is the aggregation sites bury local news under links to the same MSM stories regurgitated 1000 different places in pretty short order. I used Canadian/BBC coverage on 9/11, the US MSM was doing such a horrible job once the towers collapsed.
 
One could say the same for LW news sources. The problem isn't the lean as much as it is the aggregation sites bury local news under links to the same MSM stories regurgitated 1000 different places in pretty short order. I used Canadian/BBC coverage on 9/11, the US MSM was doing such a horrible job once the towers collapsed.

If you can identify a source as LW or as RW, it probably isn't too reliable.
 
If you can identify a source as LW or as RW, it probably isn't too reliable.

i disagree. Facts are facts. If one cannot differentiate between facts and slant, so be it.
 
i disagree. Facts are facts. If one cannot differentiate between facts and slant, so be it.

Facts are facts, and figures don't lie, but liars figure.
It all depends on which facts are reported, which are left out, and which are mostly made up.
 
Sometimes the spin can make anyone dizzy.
i disagree. Facts are facts. If one cannot differentiate between facts and slant, so be it.
 
I have been getting Al Jazeera for the last 6 weeks or so. I have been impressed with the straight-ahead reporting they do.
 
Sometimes the spin can make anyone dizzy.

Sure but unfortunately people confuse commentary with news and have an insatiable need for bias confirming commentary.
 
I think that explains the existance and popularity of Fox. I know there is another side to that story. :)
Sure but unfortunately people confuse commentary with news and have an insatiable need for bias confirming commentary.
 
155h676sr.jpg
 
I'd be hesitant to give this opinion, but I'll say NPR. Colbert shouldn't even be an option.
 
NPR is winning?

What a joke.
 
I'd be hesitant to give this opinion, but I'll say NPR. Colbert shouldn't even be an option.

"I'd be hesitant to give this opinion, but I'll say Colber. NPR shouldn't even be an option."

Fixed that for you.
 
Personally, I would say that AP and PBS are the most reliable in terms of giving straight facts (generally speaking).
 
NPR is winning?

What a joke.

Better than Twitterville and Boston Masscre our Reporting CNN, clownish FOX News and MSNBC, conspiracy-theory BBC, etc.
 
"I'd be hesitant to give this opinion, but I'll say Colber. NPR shouldn't even be an option."

Fixed that for you.

If I wanted to write that in crayon, perhaps so.
 
Entertaining as Colbert and Stewart are, they are not news programs. You might as well list Saturday Night Live.
 
Back
Top Bottom