Balanced, unbiased and informative current affairs

[deflatedbirthday]

I'm really interested in current affairs, however I'm increasingly frustrated with the majority of articles I read seemingly pushing one agenda or another.

I'd like to read something balance and unbiased if possible.

I like historical context where possible.

Where do people go for this sort of news/ article?

[Quveas]

Since everything is opinion anyway, then there will always be "slant" even in the most impartial attempts - humans are shaped by context and that inevitably shows through. So I think you have to read across sources rather than expect one to fulfill your demands, then come to your own balance. But a news / current affairs source that is very much under-rated in the UK is Al Jazeera. Not without slant, but the quality of reporting is high.

[Pringleface]

There aren’t really any news or current affairs outlets which are completely unbiased that I know of. Reuters used to be but I believe they do opinion now. My suggestion would be to read articles with the knowledge that there is an agenda and read objectively. Why is that story being reported on by that outlet? What do you think they want you to take away from it? What do you know about the outlet and its agendas?

In terms of historical context, you’re mostly going to have to do that research yourself but remember that Wiki is not a source and can be edited by anyone.

[SomethingNastyInTheGenePool]

There’s no such thing as completely
unbiased news. The way stories are
reported can be fair and rigorous, but someone has to choose which stories to report and which to skip, and that’s where bias (personal and institutional) comes in, even in the most self-consciously neutral newsrooms.

[WhenIWasAFieldMyself]

As above. No such thing really. But everyone knows that.
These days you're probably better off with the print press and longstanding sources.
New Statesman, the Economist, The Times, The Independent, Time, The Observer.
None are unbiased, by definition. The information is sourced and written by humans who are not unbiased. But at least with the above you do get well written, detailed, well-researched pieces, despite the bias.
That's where critical thinking comes in. Read the available information then decide what you think

[BodegaSushi]

@Quveas

Since everything is opinion anyway, then there will always be "slant" even in the most impartial attempts - humans are shaped by context and that inevitably shows through. So I think you have to read across sources rather than expect one to fulfill your demands, then come to your own balance. But a news / current affairs source that is very much under-rated in the UK is Al Jazeera. Not without slant, but the quality of reporting is high.

I second Al Jazeera.

[FOJN]

I agree with PP there is no such thing as unbiased reporting and I think things are getting worse in terms of opinion being presented as news. I read from multiple news sources to balance the bias, even then I remain open minded that I still may not have all the facts.

Things are also complicated by social media and companies like Google actively suppressing some information so it's harder to find. Wiki is edited so frequently with misinformation that even the founder doesn't think it's reliable which makes it harder to verify any historical context added to a news story.

And then we have he joys of AI to look forward to....

[Random789]

I disagree slightly with the claim that there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Of course we all operate with biases - conscious and unconscious - and they can never be eliminated.

But surely the commonsense meaning of 'unbiased reporting' is reporting that strives to avoid bias, that self-scrutinises, adapts to evolving evidence etc, and that maintains an awareness of its own vulnerability to selectivity etc in its reporting? In other words, a source that adopts a version of the scientific method, modified to apply to real life rather than ideally constructed studies.

Of course there is unlikely to be a source that lives up to that completely, but I bet there are sources that aim towards it and monitor their success/failure to live up to that aim. Like the OP, I'd love to find out about these.

I do think that some journalists who would in the past have aspired towards these ideals have been corrupted (like so many of us, including me) into a polemicised, polarised charicature of truth-seeking, and I don't want to emable them anymore by reading them.

[deflatedbirthday]

Thanks all. Perhaps unbiased was the wrong word but @Random789 has summarised what I'm looking for better than I could!

[weebleswobblebuttheydontfalldown]

I find the news bias very irritating! I'm with you on that, I noticed this most around Brexit and the pandemic, it was subtle things but once I noticed it, the pattern was clear and it irked me so I now don't watch most BBC news. I have found C4 news and sky news seem a bit less biased and perhaps ITV a bit, however I think they all have a slant sadly.