I don’t know if I should change the title to ‘does unbiased media exist?’
I just found out a Washington Post cartoonist quit after a Bezos satire she draw was rejected.
I was until today a reader of said newspaper, but after this kind of censorship I don’t know if I should keep reading it.
Note that I’m not looking for media sources that fabricate outrage either for the left or for the right or news sources whose business model is to editorialize titles to work people up. I’m just looking for unbiased media sources.
Maybe this was a stupid question: everyone is biased, or am I wrong?
You must log in or register to comment.
Bias exists in all media, we must simply consume media critically with the relevant biases in mind
If i may ask - what does “consume media critically” mean?
How is the process description for that? I’m genuinely interested. I see the word “critical thinking” thrown around a lot but it was never explained to me even in the slightest bit. What does it entail?
When you read with an awareness of the source and the larger context in which it was written, and you’re trying to actively decide what to believe based on what can be substantiated, that is at least a part of reading critically.
It’s not taught well in schools, and most people nowadays are simply reading headlines and reacting based on their gut feeling. Such people are easily swayed for the worse, but difficult to help.
thank you, that actually makes sense to me
Everyone’s biased imo. I like propublica’s biases.
Associated Press and Reuters.
note that in addition to staff reporting, the ap is also reliant on member publications–which means that those biases end up on ‘the wire’, too.
Genuine question, what about Politico?
NPR isn’t too bad.
I don’t think unbiased media exist. But some are at least less biased. And you want some bias towards scientific reasoning, honesty and meritocracy. Otherwise you introduce too much noise (which is one reason why being absolute about free speech leads to less free speech, and also the reason electronic warfare is something prioritized by politically weak and/or military weak state actors). Less noise usually correlate with what people perceive as left leaning or liberal bias (in the western political landscape of 2025). Might be very related to this. Also, I think it’s OK with biased media as long as one is open and explicit about it.
In Sweden I use Omni which is a commercial news aggregator, which I find relatively unbiased or balanced. Public service is pretty good as well.
For American news, I usually go for NPR first. Don’t know if they are super unbiased, but at least they are not full on crazy.
I’ve tried Ground News, but I feel it’s a bit too focused on politics of the English speaking sphere.
None. All are biased. The best way is to read multiple news sources being aware of what their biases are.
I wouldn’t just say “all are biased”.
Some just outright make things up. (looking at you, Fox News entertainment)
Bias is less concerning to me than accuracy. Left/right? I don’t really care as long as the reporting is accurate.
All corporate news has been moved to the right, even NPR. For all practical purposes, local news has been eliminated. Local news formed the basis for trust and truth. Getting you news at a local ground level creates trust - you may know the reporter or you kids go to school with his kids. There is nothing wrong with news bias if you have sources that you can trust to report the truth and not omit critical information. That said, seek out and listen to people like Timothy Snyder, who have important messages. Here’s a clip of him talking about how the internet has changed and corrupted our news and views.
I like listening to Belle of the Ranch, because she succinctly explains important topics that the MSM does not - note she does present views from a more leftist angle.
Steve Shives is a Youtuber does not report the news but offers opinion that might inspire you to do further research. Finding good reliable news sources takes work, while junk news is cheap, readily available and detrimental to you.I usually prefer AP, Reuters, and PBS. I’m sure there is still some bias somewhere, but at least they strive to report just news straight up without injecting opinion.
AP, Reuters, BBC, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist, also Ground News (at risk of sounding like a YT content producer)
I prefer sources with obvious bias since it makes it easier to account for. Sources that pretend to be unbias are far more insidious.
All are biased.
If there’s an event occurring within the last few days I’ll check AP and a couple other moderate/right sources to check/compare spin.
After a few days there’s usually a pod out on it from the left view. I like It Could Happen Here, Some More News, and Even More News. They’re incredibly well sourced, and are out in the open about their biases.
Even when there’s no editorializing there’s selection bias. That selection is due to capacity or the political viewpoint of the reporting. You won’t see stories that are less relevant to reporter/editor interest.
AP, Routers, BBC, Al Jazeera.
Whenever I want to know the facts without any editorializing, I go for AP.
I like the way the Behind the Bastards podcaster explains it. Each journalistic outlet had strengths to certain things and part of learning to consume journalism is knowing what each sources’ strengths or weaknesses are. Or learning to follow specific journalists across platforms.
And some just play to the echo chambering of political parties saying exactly what their reader base wants to hear. It’s good to learn what those are as well.
Everyone is biased, some less so. Use something like media bias checker or Ground News and read what they say the bias is and why.
