TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Ask HN: Where do you get your unbiased news?

38 点作者 bballbackus将近 15 年前
When I say unbiased news, I refer to updates on changes in world news, politics, and economics.<p>I listen to NPR's hourly updates 2 to 3 times per day via [1]Stitcher, then I also read NPR's website on occasion. Aside from NPR I find it hard to find an unbiased news source.

55 条评论

idan将近 15 年前
IAMA dual-citizen of the United States and Israel. I've grown up processing a lot of news about Israel, both local (Israeli news outfits) and foreign (most journalism written in English). I've had more than one occasion to see an event unfold firsthand, and later read about it in the media.<p>There is no unbiased news. You must read between the lines, corroborate and reconcile different accounts, and generally think in order to piece together a picture of an event, even with reputable sources, because even reputable sources are really just a big organization that sent a reporter somewhere.<p>In fact, the reality is even worse: many topics of news have no singular "truth" to them. As soon as a reporter ceases to be strictly recollective, news becomes an editorial affair -- and that's ok, so long as people recognize it as such. The problem is that few people are equipped to make that distinction.<p>Most people never learn to take a piece of writing and tear it apart critically. It's a skill that requires time and practice to acquire. Without it, people conflate the hard news and the subjective bits. Quality journalism <i>should</i> include a mix of hard news and analysis, but the news market today sells to the lowest common denominator, who generally want a simple narrative in 500 words or less. This leaves little room for the ambiguity of the real world.<p>I constantly question what I read because of my experience with reporting about Israel, and I often think about how little I really know when reading about other places and stories that lack a neat narratives.
评论 #1507094 未加载
petercooper将近 15 年前
I've seen this question pop up online a lot, and a common answer from Americans seems to be "BBC News." Brits, however, tend to detect a liberal bias in the BBC's output though it pales in comparison to any found in the US media. The BBC News team recently reported that the site will be unveiling an all new design and workflow in the next couple of weeks, including a US focused version maintained by a separate editorial team in Washington DC.<p>In my experience, though, it's best to use a large but manageable number of sources and interpret them with intelligence and wisdom to get a feel for what the reality is.
评论 #1506695 未加载
评论 #1507675 未加载
lionhearted将近 15 年前
Let me ask - what's your goal from the news? Entertainment? Be informed? Looking for a career that would require knowledge of that sort?<p>If your goal is get a clear understanding of how the world works, I'd recommend you transition away from current events news and into reading history. Current events gives equal time, sometimes greater time, to people that are incredibly stupid and will be thoroughly discredited in a short time. If you were about the War on Drugs in the 1980s, you were getting some now-discredited nonsense. You would've been much better informed and able to predict outcomes by reading up on Prohibition in the USA or what happens during any era with a ban on a desired product.<p>History repeats itself - bans and prohibitions pretty much always go the same way. Black markets emerge to deliver the goods if they're desired, this increases the price of the good and makes it lucrative. But disagreements in this lucrative trade can't be arbitrated in court because the trade is illegal. Thus, disputes are settled by violence. The need for enforcers, arms, and protection outside of the law is conducive to gradually centralizing gangs, cartels, mafia, and other organized crime. This is pretty much always the way with prohibitions on desired goods throughout history - and you could easily predict that if you study history, but it's far too easy to get distracted by charismatic talking points in a debate over current events.<p>If you want to learn about the American financial crisis, you'd do well to learn about banking crises throughout history. If you want to learn about public education, you could do worse than starting to learn about the Prussian education system.<p>I've found much more insight in looking back at largely resolved things than trying to sort through the mess of what's going on. Then when I find myself out at dinner and it comes up, I can say something like, "Well, at XYZ time in Japan they did ZYX, and the result was ABC. Do you think that will happen with this policy in America?" Thus, you're useful to the discussion because instead of rehashing one of the two mainstream viewpoints you can get on the news, you introduce new facts, and you'll inevitably hear about the mainstream viewpoints during conversation, debate, and discussion anyways. History isn't as sexy or charged as mainstream news, but you wind up becoming much better informed in the end, and you'll most likely still pick up the main viewpoints of events as they unfold.
评论 #1507329 未加载
评论 #1507859 未加载
prawn将近 15 年前
Almost a year ago, I quit reading local news. Stopped hitting the main news sites 10x/day, stopped picking up a physical paper when I happened across one. I'd already stopped watching televised news.<p>I'd found that too much of what I was seeing was simply irrelevant and it either frustrated me or pissed me off.<p>Since that point, research into the influence of PR/publicity companies on local news showed that our primary newspaper in South Australia was comprised of 30% content pushed by PR/publicity. The online versions of the main paper here have devolved into eye-ball seeking trash - bikini galleries, celebrity gossip, etc.<p>Through this experience I've learnt how little I really miss. 99% of what's going on just doesn't need to be known.<p>I check Al Jazeera English once or twice a week and CNN a little less often. Other than that, I feel like I've saved some time and cleared my head a little (especially of some of the negativity that comes from news).
评论 #1506751 未加载
评论 #1507027 未加载
评论 #1506822 未加载
wglb将近 15 年前
It isn't clear that there is such a thing. I remember a friend used to listen to NPR on the way home. At one point, he realized that he was getting home angry. Once he figured this out, he quit NPR and started listening to easy listening jazz (which I reinterpret to mean non-threatening jazz, but that's another story).<p>See, what most news channels do (TV, newspaper, web) is to strive to alarm you. NPR stories about central american coups, financial press predictions of doom with taxation proposals, valley press warning of the upcoming total shortage of venture capitol, bloggers warning of the impending death of microsoft, prince predicting (hoping?) for the death of the internet itself.<p>When we talk about bias, we are more likely to think left-leaning vs right-leaning vs libertarian. Let me suggest another way of looking at this.<p>Are you looking for a source of news whose thrust is to alarm you? I claim that is the common bias shared by most news sources.<p>So I suggest this simple experiment. As you listen to a newscast/blogger podcast/tv broadcast or read a blogger post/newspaper/news.google.com/news.combinator.com ask yourself "is this story informing or alarming".<p>Then check out utne.com or the Christian Science Monitor.<p>Better yet is to read several, or none at all.<p>Who is it that said "if the information is important, it will find me"?
MichaelSalib将近 15 年前
I've picked some policy blogs written by smart people. When news happens, they often write posts about it and link to articles plus they often add their own analysis.<p>This is something that I don't think is well understood: the most broken component of most news organizations is the editing. News editors tend to be...not smart. They don't have nearly enough subject matter expertise to make intelligent decisions about how to asses factual claims in articles or how to put the news in context. If I want to read about economics, I know for a fact that any econ blogger on the planet knows a hell of a lot more than 98% of newspaper editors. What's far worse is how news organizations present politics; they behave as if political science doesn't exist. Everything is explained in terms of fictional narratives that often contradict polling while ignoring fundamentals. Reading news articles about politics makes you more ignorant, not less.<p>For example, I read Lawyers Guns and Money ( lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/ ) and when, say, a war in Georgia breaks out or a South Korean warship sinks, I know about because the LGM guys write posts with links to news sources. But since some of them are security studies professors who specialize in international relations and global security, I get the added context to make sense of it.<p>So pick some subjects that interest you, find some subject matter experts with blogs and toss them into an RSS reader. The result will be better than any newspaper and you'll still get notified when an "important" article gets published in the NYT or WAPO or LAT or WSJ or anywhere else.
评论 #1506823 未加载
cgranade将近 15 年前
Short answer: I don't. Never mind the insanely conservative bias to every major media outlet in the US, I don't really trust news that claims to be unbiased. I prefer it if instead you get reporters and editors being <i></i>honest<i></i> about their biases. The whole idea of an unbiased news media being the ideal kind of news has caused a lot of problems, as can be seen from the firing of Weigel: <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/court-eunuch-standard-blogging-exposed-d" rel="nofollow">http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/court-eunuch-standard-bl...</a>. We need to get past the idea of an unbiased news and move on to having an honest news corps.
kscaldef将近 15 年前
I tend to go with NPR and The Economist. Both are biased, but their biases are relatively mild and out in the open (and, more-or-less in opposition to each other).
评论 #1506803 未加载
评论 #1506969 未加载
kungfooey将近 15 年前
There is no "unbiased news." Period.<p>If what you want to do is get information without an overt bias, then yes, NPR is fairly good. Others have recommended The Economist, I second that. I would recommend getting your news from a variety of sources (preferably not American-centric, if you wish to hear international news).<p>I tend to lean heavily on NPR, The Economist, and the NY Times (the last two are seriously contradictory, but I find that to be useful). I have heard good things about The Atlantic, although I cannot vouch for it myself.
jbrun将近 15 年前
BBC, Al Jazeera English, and the Financial Times.<p>In my opinion, those are the three most journalistic institutions remaining - they report the facts as cleanly as humanly possible.
评论 #1506870 未加载
wyclif将近 15 年前
There is no such thing as a lack of bias.
评论 #1506605 未加载
评论 #1506619 未加载
awolf将近 15 年前
I love The Economist. It's the only magazine I subscribe to.<p>I think British culture is close enough to US culture to do a great job capturing the subtleties of American politics; at the same time they remain less biased since, for the most part, they don't have a horse in the race.<p>BTW: I also find that while they do try to remain unbiased, NPR slants a little more to the left than the right,
评论 #1506749 未加载
physcab将近 15 年前
I really enjoy the Christian Science Monitor. Despite its name, it seems to be relatively unbiased. I also like its approach to news- They tend to work on a local level, but cover broad issues from a different perspective than you'd typically find from the AP or Reuters.
评论 #1506829 未加载
pinchyfingers将近 15 年前
There isn't such a thing as an unbiased news source. One solution is to get de-constructed news from a source like No Agenda - <a href="http://www.noagendashow.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.noagendashow.com/</a>, and then you'll start to recognize the slant behind new stories more readily.<p>All professional new outlets have sponsors, and so they are biased. NPR for example, has shows sponsored by Monsanto, GE, and Archer Daniels Midland - so good luck avoiding bias!
评论 #1506738 未加载
评论 #1509947 未加载
theBobMcCormick将近 15 年前
PBS Frontline is amazing. Very in depth, very informative. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/</a>
_flag将近 15 年前
Why do people feel the need to label news sources as either "left" or "right" wing. Why do both sides always have to have valid points? Either the news source has good reporting and its opinions are logical and supported by facts, or not.<p>That said I don't really read much news but I prefer Al Jazeera English and the BBC.
bjmarte将近 15 年前
I like the PBS NewsHour program. They seem to have a slight left bias that I find tolerable. I really like the way they pick two or three issues daily to go in-depth with and try to get opinions from multiple sides. I also like that the people they get opinions from seem to be the well thought, well spoken type rather than the "I can talk the loudest and make the other guy look dumb" type that the cable news networks seem to use.
corin_将近 15 年前
As a Brit I find that I just need to tune into pretty much any American news channel (like Fox), and after five minutes of that right wing hilarity any other coverage in the world seems 110% unbiased in comparison.
rmundo将近 15 年前
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Watch it for yukks and for a general take on what occupies the American psyche. It's in your face frivolous, but so much news these days is frivolous while pretending not to be that in comparison, The Daily Show actually feels like straight talk. They seem to really do their homework when it comes to researching past news. And the interviews are gold.<p>The Economist has a decent survey of what's important to different peoples around the world, but I try to keep in mind that a page or two of commentary often doesn't capture all the nuances of a local situation. Other times I just scan the front page of Google News.<p>All news is biased. Just choosing the verbs and nouns in a news report makes it so. Things I try to avoid these days are outright dishonesty, unfair judgement (different standards when judging Party A vs Party B), and hidden agendas. Having a value system is alright if you are honest and forthright about it.
评论 #1506761 未加载
评论 #1506897 未加载
roboneal将近 15 年前
I personally use Twitter to subscribe to a variety of individual journalists, news makers, wire services, lawmakers, media personalities, etc. Thus, essentially building my own "news aggregrator".<p>I try to follow +just enough+ people that infuriate me from time to time - just to challenge my own well established biases.
SamAtt将近 15 年前
NPR is pretty left leaning. I certainly wouldn't call them unbiased.<p>As for where to go I agree with the other comments. There is no unbiased news. I say check both. Add Fox News to your NPR habit and you should be fine.
评论 #1506639 未加载
评论 #1506655 未加载
评论 #1506673 未加载
评论 #1506667 未加载
评论 #1506638 未加载
Diogenes将近 15 年前
Those claiming here that Fox news are lying bastards are probably going to be equaled by the number of people here claiming that NPR leans left. As objectively as I can observe, the real outliers (far to the left) are the entire NBC/MSNBC set of stations and Newsweek (which is about to go under anyway). Among ABC and CBS, I think the only valuable sources are 60 minutes (which can lean left) and CBS Sunday Morning (which isn't hard news, but is informative and entertaining).<p>Again, in my opinion, NPR &#60;i&#62;leans&#60;/i&#62; left. Fox news &#60;i&#62;leans&#60;/i&#62; right. And if you want to watch the NEWS programming on Fox, then it is usually accurate as opposed to the OPINION programming on Fox like Glen Beck and O'Reilly.<p>Surprisingly enough, the most worldly, unbiased, informed and thorough daily news sources are the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, both of them use some combination of pay-for-service access - which changes regularly as the newspaper industry figures it out. They're both very close to centered, although the editorial boards lean left and right respectively. The big difference, however, is that both also give voice to dissenting opinions (where appropriate - on the OPINION pages) and publish well-thought-out, if contrary, letters to the editor.<p>Some of the other commenters are right - you need to take a look at multiple sources and discern for yourself not only where they sit on the political spectrum, but also the percentage of news to bullshit each chooses to publish.
评论 #1506786 未加载
评论 #1506825 未加载
lefstathiou将近 15 年前
bloomberg is my favorite news source. its no bull shit and data driven.<p>i remember once comparing a NYT's article on apple's earnings a little while back. one had to skip past the 10th paragraph to actually discover what their EPS was and by how much they beat expectations. those figures would never be found past the first sentence on a bloomberg piece.<p>in general i consider it safe to read articles with goggles that filter any hint of an opinion provided by the author. i look for the numbers and the facts, the rest is just noise.
philwelch将近 15 年前
I like to read FiveThirtyEight.com, not because I care about the issues but because I enjoy seeing issues explained with numbers and statistical reasoning.
geuis将近 15 年前
Honestly, HN is primarily my source. With the exception of some hard science and astronomy that I get from more direct sources. I usually hit msnbc once or twice a day and find nothing worthy of the name news. I dislike the layout of nytimes.com, so that prevents me from reading much there. Overall, if something hits HN it's usually of interest.
starkfist将近 15 年前
I gave up on all news about 10 years ago. If something is important, or unimportant but popular, I cannot escape hearing about it. Once in a while I buy the economist to read on the plane.<p>That said, I recently started reading the New York Post. There's something to be said about a really trashy, tabloid take on the news.
mbotta将近 15 年前
no such thing as unbiased news. also, no such thing as left-leaning mass media outlets. think about it: mass media implies mass funding - you need to be a corporation to be a mass media outlet. nuff said.<p>if you want to learn about what is happening in the world, you could do worse than start at the forums of media watch sites such as <a href="http://medialens.org" rel="nofollow">http://medialens.org</a> (for uk-centered media monitoring) or <a href="http://fair.org" rel="nofollow">http://fair.org</a> (for us-centered media monitoring). from there, you can refer to the original articles in the mass media and contemplate on the validity of the criticism by the media watchers.<p>that way, you incorporate a critical view on the news medium right from the moment you read the news.
rmk将近 15 年前
The Wall Street Journal. * Their opinion columns are slightly against leftist policies. I've been reading the Journal since Obama took charge in Washington, and the opinion pieces have been highly critical of the present administration. But then, anti-business sentiment among the people is high, and the present administration reflects this, so I would still say that the Journal is a great source of news AND opinion.<p>The New York Times, on the other hand is very much a left-leaning publication... I read it during the Bush years, and I am planning on reading more NYTimes, come November ;)<p>Edit: Oh yeah, forget about TV as a source of unbiased news... It's far better to go to the papers for your news :)
评论 #1506882 未加载
yoonminn将近 15 年前
There's no such things as unbiased news, all news stories are written for their specific audiences across geography and culture. All news stories of the same event have different narratives, to fit according to the intuition and interests/expectations of the intended audience.<p>When people say BBC news or some other news is less biased (some say read Chinese news about the US). It's really because it's a different narrative that sounds new/fresh, it covers different tangents that boring local media has never went.<p>So just watch whatever fits your taste/ideology.But if you are out to change your perspective and encompass as many divergent views as possible.<p>Just go for the highest contrast, and read history.
tobtoh将近 15 年前
Several years ago I read a biography on Rupert Murdoch and one thing that this book impressed upon me was how biased much of the world media is.<p>Based on that, the approach I take is not how to find unbiased news sources (although I still do try to find those), but to read widely and deeply and most importantly, to think! I try to read both 'liberal' and 'conservative' media to get both sides of the stories. I feel a lot of arguments could be avoided and consensus more easily achieved if more people tried to understand what the 'other side' thinks/feels ... and so I try to keep myself 'educated' by reading all sorts of media.
aik将近 15 年前
I agree that there is no unbiased news. Ideally you would be equally critical towards all sources. Be aware of every word you read on the page, and understand that anything could be fabricated.<p>As soon as you become "loyal", you're much more likely to believe them regardless of what they say.<p>In addition to sites others have listed, for politics mostly, I've found that these two sites are a good addition (though they're surely biased as well): <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/</a>, <a href="http://politifact.com" rel="nofollow">http://politifact.com</a>
paragraft将近 15 年前
Stratfor is my daily geopolitics fix. They occasionally offer $99 subscriptions, but there's a free weekly email and podcast that's a good way to get an idea of what they do.<p>They're not news so much as forecasting. A lot of what happens in the news now which used to seem to come out of nowhere doesn't, because I've been reading their updates on the brewing situation between countries X &#38; Y for months.<p>Similarly I enjoy Foreign Policy, though they're a bit pulpy at times. Still cheaper than an Economist subscription though.
dcreemer将近 15 年前
No media outlet is unbiased -- and that's fine. Whenever I read an article (especially opinion pieces) the first thing I do is check the byline and research the author a tiny bit.<p>I stopped watching TV years ago, and have mostly dropped radio as well. I enjoy reading news with the time to stop and think about what I just read. My main sources are (in no particular order): The Economist, NY Times, BBC News, The Guardian, NPR, and the Globe and Mail.
mark_l_watson将近 15 年前
I now try to only follow the news for 3 or 4 days a week - no news down time is nice.<p>When I do follow the news, if a story interests me I try to find articles from 2 or 3 different countries to get a spread of bias - not saying that averaging always helps though.<p>I live in the USA, and I generally feel that our news is of very low quality. The corporate control of our news media and government is a done-deal, and that strongly effects accuracy and impartiality.
amanuel将近 15 年前
All news is biased. It is the essence of news and reporting. Whoever is recording has chosen to show you what you see and hear. If someone is telling you something it is biased.<p>When I'm buying a book at amazon.com, I read the One, Three and Five star review before deciding what to believe.<p>When I hear something on the news go to Fox, CNN/BBC and NPR/CSPAN...assuming I feel it is 'bias-able'.
cvg将近 15 年前
I don't think there are any unbiased news source. I think the best we can do is read from several different sources and interpolate accurate news. I'm starting to feel that this method is too much work, but here's who I read:<p>Primaries: New York Times BBC Al Jazeera English<p>Skim both: Drudge Report and Huffington Post
loganfrederick将近 15 年前
My view is that no media outlet is completely unbiased, so I try to read as many opposing views as possible with as many facts as possible, and derive some interpretation of the truth for myself, based on as many relevant facts I can find from all sides of a debate/topic.
danbmil99将近 15 年前
I watch MSNBC and Fox, and average everything together. Good first approximation of the truth. YMMV
borisk将近 15 年前
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy</a>
zitterbewegung将近 15 年前
Combination of reddit.com , NPR , bbc.co.uk , cryptome.org and off the hook. Sometimes I will watch CNN. If one thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as unbiased news. I try to get from all angles and remain skeptical.
quizbiz将近 15 年前
Every story no matter the source will have its (1) Origin (2) Value (3) Limitation (4) Purpose. Keep that mind mind. Credit to the IB History Program for embedding those criteria for analyzing sources into my brain.
lostbit将近 15 年前
There is always some level of bias. If there is space for reader's comments (like here), I try to parse them because there I usually find "the other side" of the bias, then I have more to build my opinion...
known将近 15 年前
Why unbiased news is <i>not</i> possible?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2C_media.2C_and_money" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2...</a>
jamesbritt将近 15 年前
I have a script that launches a browser with several tabs, for BBC, Drudge, al Jazeera (sp?), Google News, a few others. Somewhere in the mix I get to know when something or other happened.
neuromorphic将近 15 年前
Noam Chomsky's brief (41s) response to the question of 'best newspaper':<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc</a>
评论 #1507237 未加载
kineticac将近 15 年前
parse out the facts like everyone says. if you already know bias exists, then you don't have too much to worry about. seeing bias shouldn't be a worry for some people, especially HN users. Here we always read and analyze everything carefully before making a decision about how to take it.<p>Treat all news sources the same way, it shouldn't be too bad.
xenophanes将近 15 年前
NPR is not unbiased. What you will perceive as unbiased depends on your own political leanings.<p>For example, I consider anything left of Ayn Rand level capitalism advocacy a left-leaning bias because it's left of the truth. But other people would say that's extremely biased even though it consists of nothing but true statements. What they would call unbiased would be advocacy of some mixed/compromise economic system which is left of capitalism. Shrug.
评论 #1506886 未加载
known将近 15 年前
<a href="http://www.opencrs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.opencrs.com</a> is good
cema将近 15 年前
I do not get unbiased news. I get biased news and account for the bias.
SkyMarshal将近 15 年前
Bloomberg.com. Least biased US source I can find.
christefano将近 15 年前
Colbert.
thinkbohemian将近 15 年前
sad but true: the daily show<p>when all news is biased, at least they make their bias clear.
评论 #1506699 未加载
Concours将近 15 年前
bbc news is a very good ressource
评论 #1507758 未加载
tkahn6将近 15 年前
The PBS Newshour<p>You can watch the 1 hour, no commercial, programs online on their site. In my opinion this is the only professional national nightly news program in America. They do not lack journalistic integrity or show 'fluff' stories. Usually the program consists of 3-4 main stories where they bring on 2-3 highly qualified commentators with opposing or unique viewpoints and the discussion is moderated. At one point in the program they give a rundown of the days other stories in a brief rapid fire list, delving into more detail depending on the importance or gravity of the story.<p>This Week with Jake Tapper<p>Sunday's at 9am. Excellent and unbiased. Tapper asks really hard questions of both sides of the political spectrum. Last week he had McCain, this week he had David Axelrod. He owned them both a few times.<p>--------<p>The quality of news in this country from the main stream media is deplorable but there are a few gems out there.
mkramlich将近 15 年前
I haven't settled on one yet but I know it would not be Fox News.