Do You Honestly Think Any "News" Channel Is "Fair & Balanced"?

NPR. Leading up to the election I listened to daily debates with people from both sides of local issues, and they did sympathetic profiles of people on both sides of the aisle, most notably a local woman who switched from Dem to Rep and felt like she had to hide it in her very liberal community. I learned a lot and felt like I had plenty of space to draw my own conclusions.

ETA:
I do think that most shows and stations are beholden to the mighty ad sale. Local news harps on general fear and trauma to make people tune in, national broadcasts can focus a little more to pull in a particular audience, but still mostly use a particular slant -- conservatism, liberalism, comedy, etc-- because they can build a specific audience they can sell to advertisers. Only public outlets are not beholden to ratings.

What's interesting to me is that the whole concept of "left" is actually in the middle. Very loosely...socially, they allow people to be who they are whether or not it's popular. It's about benefitting the masses. How in the world do people call that extreme? That is the definition of unbiased, but the "right" seems to only want that extended in one direction.

I read american news online at BBC news. The American TV news is so sensationalized that the only bad news is news. And all the channels have their own slant. My husband watches a little of all the channels and sort of averages all the info to get a balanced view of what is happening.

BBC. NPR does carry left leaning special interest stories, but is the most accurate for detailed middle east coverage-which does not contain a slant. CBS and NBC Evening news are totally neutral, they're just a half hour of top news stories without opinions thrown in. Anytime you watch a nutty news station too long....FOX, MSNBC and start getting "involved" with the "commentary" you're gonna get a slant. But by then you're no longer just looking for current news, you're looking for a slant imo.

The most credible and long standing sources for reporting are sources like Meet the Press (both sides always represented on politics), NY Times (YES, it has lots of liberal stuff due to intelligencia factor in Op Eds, but it has conservative pieces as well and very in depth reporting on non-slantable subjects too), Time, Newsweek, same thing. If you just want "facts" and "What's happening" go to those and ignore any long-winded commentary from newscasters on TV. There's no need to watch a news channel (FOX, CNN) ALL DAY LONG complete with the peanut gallery "discussions" and pundits. I HATE sitting around while people talk about how I should FEEL about the news. I just want the news.

Get the news stories. Ignore the rest.

I only know of ONE STATION that SAYS it's Fair and Balanced. A certain one no one even watched before 2009 owned by Rupert Murdoch the hacker of crime victims no less. Whatever.

Any radio or news program where they allow people with different views to actually speak and not turn into a shouting insult match is fair and balanced in my mind. PBS, BBC, and NPR are good places to get basic information with views from all sides of an issue.

I guess a lot depends on your definition of fair and balanced. Does it mean absolutely no opinions allowed? Does it mean that they check their facts thoroughly? Does it mean that they present information from multiple viewpoints and allow for a respectful discussion? I think there is actually a lot of that out there. Just avoid "fake news" that is really just an entertainment show like most radio talk shows, "news" talk shows and Fox "News" or MSNBC. Plenty of great and fact based information available. Just double check against multiple sources.

I have decided as of today to boycott the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS and everything in between for their complete and utter failure to seek the truth and ask the tough questions. Ignoring stories that might reflect poorly on the president just so they can manipulate public opinion is disgusting.

Well, I will be the only one and admit I DO watch Fox News. Yep sure do. I also watch/listen to BBC. I read Wall Street Journel, Politico, Houston Chronicle. I do not listen/watch NPR or PBS. I was a member at one time of PBS but left due to their slanting to the left.

There is no doubt Sean Hannity is conservative which since I am I do watch. However, Shepard Smith is more liberal but I don't know because he REPORTS the news. That is the issue I have with NBC, CBS AND ABC. I want reporters not anchors. I want all the information. The good and bad. Bengahzi was a complete and total mess and the alphabet stations ignored it completely so in my mind they lost ALL credibility.

In all, no. As a citizen it is my responsibility to be informed and unfortunately one must go to many sources to get the information.

Wait wait wait...I'm kind of laughing here -- I agree there's usually a slant in most if not all American news sources. However, 8kidsdad, you left out a label for FOX. You called most of the networks left to far left of center, and then said, "Then there is CNBC and Fox." You called CNBC slightly right of center and declined to label FOX.

I can't imagine that you are insinuating that FOX is neutral, so I will make up for that omission by labeling FOX as "far right of center."

I agree with Riley, I think you have to go outside of the U.S. to find a news source that is free of bias.

I think cable has changed everything. I give credit to those that say up front what their orientation is: MSNBC is unabashedly liberal, Fox News is openly and proudly conservative.

I think most people watch those stations whose commentators agree with them - people seek out validation for the beliefs they hold.

I think the main networks (the original 3: NBC, ABC, CBS) are much more toward the center. For example, you will never hear any of those anchors state which party they belong to or who they plan to vote for. They aren't allowed. Even someone like Barbara Walters, who is on an opinion show and is no longer an anchor, is still employed by ABC News and is not permitted to state her political preferences. Same thing with the people (mostly men) on 60 Minutes.

However, I think those 3 networks spend a lot of time pushing their own TV shows - they will miraculously interview a star or do a report on an issue that is being featured on one of their sitcoms, and they heavily promote 20/20 and Dateline as well as other shows. That annoys me.

Also, so many of these broadcast networks are owned by much bigger companies, and they are now heavily influenced by the politics of those parent companies. They've kind of sold out now that they have so much competition from cable news. (And cable comedies and dramas, for that matter.)

I think NPR is very willing to bring on different points of view in many more radio shows. I listen to them in the car and find it a great education.

A lot of people don't agree with Bill Maher, but he certainly brings a lot of opposing viewpoints on his show. I also see that Chris Matthews and others on MSNBC bring on commentators like Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee) and Steve Schmidt (McCain campaign chief of staff) as regular contributors.

I think that print media (news magazines) do much more in-depth reporting because they aren't trying to get something on the air tonight. They take the time to investigate and give background information.

And I think you can use politico and factcheck.org to check the claims that any of them make.

For American politics?

BBC & Al Jazeera ... Online/print news is best, but even sound bite news is head and shoulders above ours.

They're on the outside looking in, so rarely have a dog in our domestic politics, and they both have high journalistic standards.

Keep in mind that Fox is known largely as an entertainment channel.
They've also got an ex employee validating the fact that they "make things up" that sound good for ratings ( you can google that).
Msnbc is liberal.
BBC and NPR are pretty unbiased.
What do I do? I watch them all!
I'm aware of the difference between opinion and fact then I research topics myself as well.
It's important to listen to the opposite slant as well. To be informed.
I (liberal) LOVE to listen to Sean Hannity on my way home. I do because I was really trying to listen for WHY reps think Obama is so evil. BEGGING to be swayed...all it was was endlessly entertaining to me that he has said the same 6 sentences over and over for an entire year! Today? He didn't have much to say, just had a revelation from Ann Coulter that "it's hard to get an incumbent out of office." Uhhhh...really?
Anyway. Check everything. People that fail to do that can tend to make their whole party look uneducated.

No. It is frustrating as he$$. No one is fair and balanced. The media is there to make $$

I hate Bo always have, always will. Boy is America in for trouble.

Fox surely isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure......

I get my news from the BBC and NPR. They really try to be fair and balanced and to look at the data from all angles and perspectives.

Not anymore. Back in the day when there was no cable, I believe that it was easier to find balanced reporting. Some of the big names, like Peter Jennings (God rest his soul), were more along the lines of balanced.

Some news channels do a better job of being balanced than others. And some don't try at all.

I actually like the ones who have both sides shown on particular SEGMENTS where they are actually talking nicely to each other and you know that they aren't giving "news". The news SHOULD be unbiased. I don't want my news colored with opinion.

Dawn

Try PBS or Public Radio.

I think Al-Jazera is the most reliable news source.

Haha...no. Opinions, are never fair and balanced.

All News channels have different Reporters/Journalist/News Anchors. Most give their opinion. It's best to listen to sources that have panels were everyone can give their opinion/facts on a subject.

Fox News has many many different Reporters and they do NOT consider themselves entertainment. One of the reasons Fox News is the #1 rated show EVER is because they have soooo many different personalities, some Reporters are rightwingers and some are leftwingers and yes some are over the top but at least they have both parties.

Bret Baier is excellent, his show is called Special Report. Meet the Press David Gregory does a decent job. PBS does an ok job of keeping the panel fair.

I am also driven by people that absolutely abhor anything, that means they must be saying/doing something right. Plus when a news channel has double the ratings that other channels have, again there must be something to that.

No. There is NO news resource that is "fair and balanced" - try as they might - they lean one way or the other.

Fox has liberals (Juan Williams - who I typically like) and Geraldo - as liberal as they come...

NPR TRIES to be in the middle - but they lean left - typically - and when they let Juan Williams go - they proved they aren't "fair".

Factcheck.org is a liberal site - The Annenburg Project - is something near and dear to Obama's heart - he has served on the board for several projects, along with his unrepentant, self described terrorist buddy - Bill Ayers....YES. They have said things "against" Obama - only when they couldn't spin it any other way to make him look good. And yes, I've used Factcheck.org.

Politico and Politifact try as well.

I think they all "TRY" - but it's a matter of WHAT they want to get out. Now that Obama is re-elected - the charge for Obamacare is in full swing...too bad too many people don't realize the ramifications of this legislation...The individual States must notify DC by November 23rd 2012 whether they will be setting up new health insurance markets, called exchanges, in which millions of households as well as small businesses will shop for private coverage. The Health and Human Services Department will run the exchanges in states that aren't ready or willing. And people say it's NOT government run...yeah right...

So read MANY sources - you will end up getting the truth in a mixed version - yes - you'll have to piece it together - but it's out there. You need to THINK for yourself when doing your research. It's hard not to tangled up in it. Especially when a topic is close to your heart or in your "back yard" - something you REALLY feel needs to happen or YOU want...it's NOT just about YOU...there are millions of others that will be affected by YOUR decision as well.

BBC and NPR. I have heard liberals say NPR is to conservative, and conservatives say it's too liberal - so I figure it's as balanced as it's going to get. They do have more liberal leaning professionals - BUT - here's the key - do they interview BOTH SIDES with the same amount of vigor and keep them on the hook for answers? I've found the answer to be yes most of the time.

FOX basically blew up as not being a news show when CARL ROVE took it over because he refused to believe the FACTS of the election. He destroyed their credibility and I feel really sorry for the poor news people that had to deal with that.

Oh sure, most anchor women are pretty and paired with a male counterpart - that's fair and balanced, right?!! ;)

no and its really annoying. i dont care what the opnion of the news caster is only the facts.

I like PBS Newshour and other news shows on PBS. They will bring people on representing each point of view and actually let the person talk. I get so mad when I am trying to hear what a person is saying and they just get talked over so much by the opposing representative (and sometime even the news anchor!) you can't hear what anyone is saying. That sort of thing doesn't happen on PBS.
I have the NPR app on my phone and they seem to be fairly balanced too.
Definitely Fox is slanted Republican and MSNBC is so left-leaning I couldn't stand to watch it at all this election season.
I do have to give some credit to CNN for being more balanced. I thought their pundits during the debate coverage were pretty fair to both sides. They still lean more left than right, but they seem to make an effort to be more balanced. I think Erin Burnett's Out Front seems to be pretty fair as well as Anderson Cooper tries to keep it real too on the occasions I have watched their shows. Soledad O'brien gets a big fat F in my opinion. She can hardly contain her dislike for anyone that is not a democrat. She is bad about talking over her guests and grimacing if she doesn't like what they are saying. I could care less who she personally favors, but as a journalist it is her job to be neutral. On the other hand, you could say the same about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'rielly and the like, so yeah they all have their slants.
I do have to give kudos for Fox News pushing to get answers about the Benghazi massacre. If it wasn't for that newschannel the others would have swept it under the rug, but because of findings made by Fox other media like Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have now started to ask some questions about the issue too. It's not right to the families of those four people that lost their lives or to the American people (especially those with loved ones willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom) to not give them honest answers as to what happened and be sure our government is going to protect our troops when they need it. Watergate probably would have never been uncovered if it hadn't been for a couple of reporters asking questions about it. So I applaud Fox for being assertive about this issue.
HTH,
A.

Never seen a fair and balanced news source.

What I did was picked the Wall Street Journal, learned their biases, adapted it to my way of thinking and I still pull data to make sure they aren't yanking my chain.

The "style" of news reporting here... is quite different than other parts of the world.
I have seen the news in other countries. And that was, pretty balanced news. It is just news, not spinned.
And per talk shows, there would be guests on the panel from all different "parties" and they'd sit there, like in a living room and just talk about their ideas. It not being a "debate" to "win" over the others. It was a discussion, for discussion sake. Not a competition or about it being about "winning." Just a talk amongst others. And it was civil. It was not competitive. And not propaganda. It is a talk, show, in its most basic sense. Not about celebrity pretentiousness.

News here, is another animal.
It depends on many things. Many dynamics and about the ethos and culture of the society. Its a reflection of that.
And of the owners of the news stations, too.

You've got to watch them all then wade through the BS. Nothing is fair or balanced.

To a degree. You have to get your media from several sources, however.

Fox News is about as right as you can get. They misinform their viewers, and their viewers get answers to big questions of national significance wrong more than any other network. (As shown by research.) They are probably the least Fair and Balanced of the networks by a long shot (ironic, eh?), and are certainly used as a tool by the Republican Party.

MSNBC news is, apparently, the left's answer to Fox. Not fair or balanced either. They rank with FOX as least fair and balanced.

I rarely watch news on TV. Sometimes I'll watch a show (or debate or election coverage) on PBS, such as the one with Gwen Ifill. She is fair and balanced. (Those on the very right who vilify PBS will disagree.) By the way, the viewers who get the most questions right about the big issues (in the same research that shows that FOX viewers get the least questions right) are the PBS/NPR viewers. So, even if they might lean a little left, they provide accurate information.

Regarding print coverage, you'll need to use a couple of sources. It's generally pretty easy to tell if a newspaper tilts one direction or the other. For example: The Seattle Times is a little right of center and the Seattle PI is a little left. In Las Vegas, the Review Journal is extra right and the Sun (now defunct) was probably left. I would suggest seeking out sources such as The Economist (a little right) and the Christian Science Monitor (a little left) for general reporting. These are also good since they provide a view of the US from outside of the US. Helps to escape the bubble. Since I'm surrounded by the ideas of the left, I like to seek out columnists who are right of center (but not crazy) to balance my ideas. One good example is David Brooks of the NY Times.

For radio, I listen to NPR and similar (OPB, MPB, BBC, PRI, etc.). Yes, I'm sure the vast majority of their employees are liberal/lefties, but they feel obligated to provide both sides of an issue. Which is way more than can be said of most talk radio. One of my favorite times is Friday afternoons when they bring on David Brooks (right) and EJ Dionne (left) to discuss the relevant issues of the day. It can be very enlightening.

Finally, it sounds like there are many on the right who did not get their news from any sources outside of the right's sphere of influence (e.g. Fox, National Review, Glen Beck, etc. and so on.) Many seemed really surprised that Romney lost. It should not have been a surprise, since the polls had been trending toward Obama for several weeks. (Read Nate Silver's Blog 538.) But, these viewers never exposed themselves to media sources outside of their bubble. It kind of begs the question of what other issues have they so deluded themselves about. Climate change is the first issue that comes to mind.

ETA:
Reading some of the responses (after the fact) shows that there is a whole lot of crazy out there. Some folks conspiracy theories regarding all news sources except FOX (that harbinger of the ultimate truth! har har) would be really entertaining if they weren't so sad.

Some are saying you have to go outside the US for fair and balanced news. Unfortauntely, I don't believe that we get there here in Australia either, in TV nor print. Next time you read a major story in your newspaper (doesn't matter which paper), do a little test. Look up more on that story on Google. I bet you will find that your newspaper bought the story from another source. That exact same article, word for word, will be published around the world. (I did this with the stories regarding the Navy Seal's book about killing Osama Bin Laden. Newspapers from 4 countries had the exact same story. It only made me realise we will never know the real story.) So not only is our news biased, it is nearly impossible to find an objective version. At least if there were many articles on the same story you could read various versions and make up your own mind what is fact and what is biased.

No, so I gather my news from all of them and TRY to determine the truth based on what can be corroborated.

No. I have never seen a news show on TV that I thought was fair and balanced. CNN and MSNBC are very far to the left. The main networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, are then a littlebit more towrds the center, but still far to the left. The there is CNBC and FOX. CNBC is slightly right of center because its mostly business news. FOX is further right of center.

Good luck to you and yours.

No, I do not feel that any media sources are fair or balanced today. It's all ratings driven be it radio, paper, magazine or the boob tube.
It is very hard to know what is REAL in our society, it takes real research on our own part if you want real answers. Unfortunately most of us rely on media because it's easy and we are spoiled like that.

Hell, no.

I do watch foreign news online for more balance, as they keep dirty laundry hush-hushed and expose everyone else's dirty laundry. Haven't watched TV in a year, so I don't have someone feeding me an opinion.

Russia Today: http://rt.com

SourceFed (entertaining straightforward info):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGiEOfo2E7E&feature=plcp

Al-Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com

We prefer BBC, and Al Jazeera. There is also a German news broadcast in English which is pretty good, as is Russia Today. BBC tends to reflect a pro-US and pro-Israeli bias, but is overall better than most US news broadcasts.

Good luck to you and yours,
F. B.

There are none that are fair & balanced and the ones that try are usually considered crazy (or untrue). The government also controls what is broadcast to some extent so the stations will never make our government look too bad.

No. It doesn't exist.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager discusses news topics among many other things. He has a "Hapiness Hour" and the "Male / Female Hour" that I also enjoy. I think he is one of the wisest people on the planet and offers fair and balanced reporting.

This article has an interesting perspective on the election and the question you are asking:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-c...

Nope. It's all about ratings and what sells their product. And people cannot be totally impartial, no matter how hard they try. If you want to find fair and balanced, you really have to read a few newspapers.... and then decide for yourself.

I like this one: http://www.politifact.com/

But it's not a channel. :-)