Last unbiased News Reporter/ News Organization

I have been wondering about this for a long time. Here is my question. It is sort of a three part question.
Part 1. Who was the last unbiased national news reporter on TV?
Part 2. What news organization is unbiased?
Part 3. Why are news papers biased? They always seem to want to support anything Democrats do.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I have been wondering about this for a long time. Here is my question. It is sort of a three part question.
Part 1. Who was the last unbiased national news reporter on TV?
Part 2. What news organization is unbiased?
Part 3. Why are news papers biased? They always seem to want to support anything Democrats do.

After reading SHaryl Attkinson's book "Stonewalled" I dare to say all reporters are biased either to the left or right.

Fox is anti administration and all the others are DC spin pr new org's

In light of Obama's stance towards whistleblowers and the corruption involved with Sharyl, Rosen, and The AP it is getting harder and harder to report real news. DC has full time pr systems that work to further the Admins talking points and corporations are obviouslsy on board as well.

Here is a link to some of the top twitter feeds for investigative news. Not sure of what biases these have but it's something.

davidcschick.com...

a reply to: Ceeker63

ill throw out lou dobbs for fun....just cause he worked for both cnn and fox and ive seen him get pissed over the agenda they were throwing at him...but really i dont know him that well

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I have been wondering about this for a long time. Here is my question. It is sort of a three part question.
Part 1. Who was the last unbiased national news reporter on TV?
Part 2. What news organization is unbiased?
Part 3. Why are news papers biased? They always seem to want to support anything Democrats do.

Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert - as close as you get in MSM.

Although Colbert likes to put on a 'im a such and such'-show; his content is still relatively unbiased. Just laugh at the commentary and absorb the actual news, and these two - again - are as close as you get.

IMO.

That or ATS.

a reply to: Ceeker63
1) I doubt that person was on air in my lifetime, so I don't know. I personally doubt such a person ever existed.

2) Not a single one. Maybe there are some unbiased local news coverage, but national or worldwide? Not a chance.

3) Newspapers are biased for the same reason all other news is biased. To keep up the illusion of our two party system. There are also right leaning newspapers as well.

I did not think about Lou Dobbs, he is a contender. I have been around a long time. I remember Huntley & Brinkley, I think they would also be on a list for unbiased reporting of news. I think that the internet has caused a lot of problems when it comes to who is and who is not biased. Once news organizations started using the internet as another place for them to spew forth their agenda they took advantage of it.

I have seen Jon Stewart, or Colbert. I do not watch their type of ramblings, to me it is a waste of time. Main Stream Media for the most part has got it wrong. So I do not watch their programing.

Ben Swann.

That is all.

One of the first rules you're taught as journalist is it's impossible to be unbiased, since the second you're born you are in an ideological prison that shapes your attitudes and opinions.

As for least biased journalists see Robert Fisk, Adam Curtis, Rageh Omar etc..who present facts then their own opinion and interpretation on these matters allowing the reader to see the difference.

In terms of which is the least biased News Organisation - it's easily Al Jazera, all the world's best journalists have long moved to working for them as they're one of the only media outlets left that will fully fund in depth reports to provide news at a loss instead of being sold for profit as a commodity by taking 80% of content from AP or Reuters like other news orgs do.

Newspapers are biased because it's impossible not to be and because of limited page space and the capitalist, for-profit run model it's easier to package things into good vs. bad, wrong vs. right or common public perceptions than taking the time and effort to investigate the real reasons why the various situations considered news worthy.
have arisen.

There's an excellent documentary called 'It Felt Like A Kiss' by Adam Curtis that explores this fact. The intro goes a little something like this.

'When a nation is powerful, it tells the world confident stories about what will happen in the future - these stories may be enchanting or frightening - but they make sense of the world

Around thew globe billions of events go on every day, some are reported, others not, so when the power begins to ebb, the stories come undone - all that is left are fragments that haunt us like half forgotten dreams'.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I think that the internet has caused a lot of problems when it comes to who is and who is not biased. Once news organizations started using the internet as another place for them to spew forth their agenda they took advantage of it.

On the contrary it is used to provide the audience with what the audience want.

Analytics and the like are used to monitor what people are reading in order to discover which subjects are the most popular -thus profitable - for the news org to print. The news has long since given up trying to explain the world and instead leaves us, the citizens, to try and explain it for them - the only problem is we don't have the slightest clue about anything as so much goes on in the world every second of every day.