Is there such a thing as unbiased news source?

[HollieD31]

We are all bombarded with suggestions on videos and news that the algorithm has chosen for us (sometimes simply because we lingered over a video longer than we should have ).On top of it most of us chose to read from sources that confirm our existing beliefs.In order to get different viewpoints I read right and left wing news papers ,but it is so frustrating how the same news get spun so differently .Where do you get your 'factual' news and how do you avoid being manipulated by the media.

I think it's incredibly hard at the moment. I would say I'm on the left and I tend to read The Guardian for basic news, and I also listen to left-leaning podcasts like Oh God What Now? for broader discussion, but I also listen to right leaning podcasts to hear their take on the same issues, which definitely gives a much wider picture.

There's an app called Ground News which will give you the spread of coverage on a particular issue from right to left, and it also highlights where there are blindspots on either side. It's very enlightening! There are some sources that are classed as being in the centre so they might be unbiased but hard to say.

There's also a site called Unherd which has opinion pieces covering a range of topics from commentators of all stripes, often tackling topics the mainstream media are queasy about.

At the end of the day I do think you just have to read a mass of sources and then make up your own mind!

I deliberately seek out ones channels that aren’t left leaning (which I am). I’m in the US at the moment and tend to read CNN, our local (v. left leaning) paper and the New York Times and listen to NPR but I also deliberately check out Fox News and the Washington Times. I also occasionally wander over to Alt-Right type sites to see what they’re saying when someone posts a link.

The biggest difference I find between CNN and Fox News is less about obvious bias in the way article are written and more about what they choose to cover and promote.

Very recently I’ve been trying browsing in incognito mode to see if that changes what I’m shown, but haven’t come to a conclusion yet.

For the UK I’m pretty lazy, relying on the BBC and things people post in forums I’m on, and then searching out or following links to Guardian, Times and Daily Mail articles on stories I’m interested in. I don’t think this is a particularly effective way to get good balance, but I don’t care so much about UK news at the moment.

And I try to remember to check out Al-Jazeera for a slightly less Western perspective on Western stories and what’s important in the world.

The smartest thing you're doing is to read newspapers, which is rare. The great thing about newspapers is that they're likely to be more factual.

Avoid algorithm suggestions. Pick your own sources. I have a good opinion of the BBC, Guardian, The Economist, the NY Times and PBS in America.

The smartest thing you're doing is to read newspapers, which is rare. The great thing about newspapers is that they're likely to be more factual

This just isn't the case in the UK. Virtually all the national newspapers have an obvious editorial bias one way or another, and will report factual matters in the way that best represents their own agenda. The Financial Times is about the most impartial of the lot, but it tends towards being so dry that it's a difficult read.

Years ago there were a few broadsheets that were not much more than a compilation of Reuters articles, so they were largely impartial and it was always clear when you were reading an opinion piece or editorial, but those days are long gone and the same publications are now some of the most blatantly biased and partial of the lot.

This is what I am talking about.
Guardian for example...If Boris Johnson single handedly restored peace in the world guardian would spin in in a way that he is an asshole for doing it.
Every news source just seem to have their hate and love list and you already know how it will be written.

TV news is required to be impartial in the UK so tends to contain less bias (and their websites follow suit). Newspapers have no such restrictions so have very blatant biases! Algorithms seem to just bake biases but I assume big tech could use them to manipulate people's news consumption for their own ends (which is a scary thought).

It’s not possible for a news source to be unbiased. Factually accurate, yes, but the choice of what facts to report is determined by the values and assumptions of the writer and the outlet, including about what stories sell.
Sometimes it might be true that there’s left wing bias and right wing bias and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But to assume that’s a general rule is a bias just like any other.
Personally I think any news source that took a really unbiased look at what’s happening in the world today would be filled with “WTF are you doing stupid humans! The Antarctic is disintegrating, the seas are rising and you are still burning fossil fuels, taking long haul flights and letting that madman in Brazil chop down the Amazon!” Pretty much all the other media is biased towards the status quo because it generally doesn’t treat climate breakdown as important when reporting on economics, politics and business, with only a token nod to the opinions of “environmentalists” as if wanting a liveable planet was some sort of niche religion.
So what I’m saying is that truth doesn’t always lie in the middle, sometimes it’s somewhere entirely different, and ‘left’ and ‘right’ aren’t the only aspects to think about,