But, even CNN (which is typically considered more liberal) is complete garbage, too.

Although to be fair that article is full of shit too..."Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism". Not in your life.

What is the most reliable and factual outlet for news in the United States?

Seems like they all sort of have their problems.

@Lando

NPR. No question about it.

The most reliable and factual popular news outlet that is not a newspaper? Probably NPR. I like to think that some of the major newspapers are generally reliable and factual, even if they don't necessarily deliver quality coverage.

@youradhere

Yeah, I wasn't really thinking about newspapers, mostly because I don't read them. I do read the Economist, but that isn't an American publication.

Although, with regards to bias, you are sorta flying blind aren't you?
Because like, unless you saw the event in question as well, how do you know how people are spinning it? You see it presented one way on FOX, another way on MSNBC and another way on CNN and another way on NPR. Who's to know who's actually presenting the thing accurately and who's twisting the facts? How do you calibrate your truth scale, when all your facts are being given by people who might be lying?

How much more evidence do we need to show that the Republicans want to create a one-party state?

First - crush the unions. The only organizations with the resources and networks that can compete with Republican corporate donors. Not to mention the added bonus of crushing working class wages and benefits.

Second - kill public media, especially public radio. So we have no alternative to listening/watching Hate Radio and corporate media crap.

I'm hoping that, because NPR gets most of its funding from sources other than the government, it can survive somehow.

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

(Except for in the case of FOX where they're definitely lying.)

@Mafia

I agree. My only point was that I'm not claiming it's good because it's unbiased. I'm saying it's good despite any bias it might have.

Also, you aren't completely flying blind. Especially with the Internet, you can gauge their bias for certain cases and then hope you can extrapolate it to other cases.

Mafia, if it's corporate owned, chances are it's bullshit.

The Economist is good, although weird in that its writers are anonymous. And for some thing it is pure crap, like anything it says on Argentina.

I suppose. I was just asking a question. For what it's worth I completely agree with you. NPR is the best news you've got and it actually is a genuinely good news source, not just the least bad one.

Not to mention, shows like "Wait Wait" and "Car Talk" can easily hold their own against the best TV has to offer.

Hahahaha, Darwyn for once we agree. The bigger problem than left-right bias is a matter of pro-corporate bias. Letting companies control how we think and what facts we have access to is a bad idea.

"although weird in that its writers are anonymous."

Yes, I also find this odd.

@Mafia - agreed, yay us! :)

The news programming on BBC America is good in that is acknowledges that a world outside the US exists! It also avoids the corporate funding bias issue that dogs other channels (with the aforementioned exception of NPR).

@ Putin33

"How much more evidence do we need to show that the Republicans want to create a one-party state?

First - crush the unions. The only organizations with the resources and networks that can compete with Republican corporate donors. Not to mention the added bonus of crushing working class wages and benefits.

Second - kill public media, especially public radio. So we have no alternative to listening/watching Hate Radio and corporate media crap."

I had to laugh at that. If Republicans want a one-party state, than why did the biggest conservative poster boy of the 20th Century spend nearly every waking hour trying to destroy one-party communist states?

Republicans (if you're thinking of the Wisconsin issue) are not concerned with private unions. Republicans are worried about tax-dollar-vacuums (aka "public unions"). Public unions are downright gluttonous. The unions are damned lucky that they managed to get to the point they are at now. Their wages and benefits rival those of doctors and lawyers. Our budget is in deep shit and we have to start making tough choices.

There are no unbiased news sources, public or private. Everyone has a political view (unfortunately, apolitical journalists are nonexistent) Republicans are trying to cut off NPR's funding because it is liberal-biased and it spends money that the government needs for more important things. If NPR was completely unbiased and the government was debt-free, I would support the continued government funding of NPR.

Because they were one party COMMUNIST states. Republicans want a one party capitalist state.

@TMW

1) The money that goes towards NPR is so small it won't make any difference on the debt.
2) NPR does not have a solely liberal bias. Market Place has a very conservative slant to it. And, even if it is biased, it is still much higher quality than anything else on radio or TV.

"Republicans are trying to cut off NPR's funding because it is liberal-biased and it spends money that the government needs for more important things." You're half right. You'd have been completely right if you'd said "Republicans are trying to cut off NPR's funding because it is liberal-biased."

And as we've discovered, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Actually a study in 2005 found that the most liberal show on NPR was more liberal than the average republican but more conservative than the average democrat...not really seeing a hugely problematic bias here.

"Republicans are trying to cut off NPR's funding because it is liberal-biased and it spends money that the government needs for more important things."

Like more war?

"Actually a study in 2005 found that the most liberal show on NPR was more liberal than the average republican but more conservative than the average democrat...not really seeing a hugely problematic bias here."

While I'm sure the conclusion is accurate (that NPR is neither here nor there on the left-right scale)... how exactly does a study determine "how" conservative or liberal one is...? ;>_>

I'd be interested to see their methods, and not in my typical cynical arrogant "I'm sure it's retarded" way, either. I want a reliable barometer for liberality/conservativeness.

@ TMW - "Republicans are trying to cut off NPR's funding because it is liberal-biased and it spends money that the government needs for more important things."

One last point, in 2009 6% of NPR's funding came directly from state governments, 10% from federal CPB grants. NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. 16% of their total revenues in 2009, from the government. In 2009 their revenues totaled $164 million. Really not a lot. 16% of 164 million is $26.2 million. For $26.2 million I can think of very few things you can do that would be more important than providing a high quality news source.
And that's assuming that federal republicans will be able to kill state level funding for NPR which they might not. More likely we'll see that 10% go, which is a matter of saving $16.4 million. Chump change on a federal level.

To be honest president Eden I'm not sure their methods are as rigorous as they sound. Here's an article about it. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

And for the record that 6% from state governments is $9.84 million, divided over 50 states and on average each state spends $196,800. My parents' house is worth more.

NPR/PBS provide a valuable service and get much of their revenue from local stations & corporate donors already. If federal money is pulled, what makes you think people won't support NPR & PBS? There are a number of ways to fund those organizations that don't involve money from the federal government.