I didn't mean to suggest that the bias was huge in size, just that it was definitely present. Sort of the same way that NPR in the US has a definite pro-woman bias when dealing with women's rights issues, whether or not women are right in a given issue.

It's ok gang. I think hedwards was just suggesting to keep an open mind. Besides, unbiased was the wrong word for me to use. PBS is a government funded program (although a large portion of content is independent) run by humans after all. Least biased television broadcast is the best description.

Right. In general, I love the BBC and NPR as news sources, they're just not perfect. And so, one should guard against whatever biases may be there by adding other sources. But, if you were restricted to those two, over all you'd be pretty well off.

I've found touchy subjects to be the ones most likely to be somewhat less than completely accurate in one direction or the other.

And these days I've been listening to more German radio to get news. Kind of interesting to hear news, particularly about your own country, from a foreign perspective.

Alright I don't disagree with that, everybody knows MSNBC and Fox put a different spin on things. I don't even believe that an unbiased news channel exists anywhere though

If that's what was meant, I don't think saying things such as " It wouldn't matter... america doesn't have news....it's infotainement.... most of your media portrays you as vapid and mindless....easily digestible and enjoyable stories etc etc " really fit.

It makes it sound like US news sites are all about trivial topics and oblivious to the rest of the world while everybody else is covering the real stories

We used to have real news, but unfortunately they are no longer printing the WWN.

Well the difference, as cogadh has already pointed out, is that the BBC is to all intents and purposes publicly funded. They have no ratings drive. No target audience to pander to. They haven't picked a popular British political party and consistently demonstrated a bias towards that party.

They haven't pandered to xenophobia by labelling a country of over a billion people as nothing but goons and thugs (CNN). They actually ensure that while they cover the opinions of individuals who write for the BBC, those opinions are kept to columns and entirely separate from the news articles.

It should also be noted that these opinions aren't baseless hyperbole too. More often than not they're written in a way to show you their perspective on the matter rather than simply stating the conclusions they've reached. In short they're not representing opinion as fact.

As for MSNBC they may not be quite as extreme as FOX, but they are their leftist*counterpart.

*that is to say leftist by American standards. Quite a bit right of centre.
I actually never mentioned sites in that comment. I was referring to American news in general and used the word "mostly" which generally refers to the most dominant news agencies like those three already covered.

There are plenty of internet sources, including those originating from the US, that would have included enough fact to be able to determine if this bill would have targeted miscarriages as claimed by the more opinionated and biased sources. But Fox News ain't it.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant, which is why I asked. I thought maybe you were going in a different direction( that I have seen others go into), but now that you've clarified it doesn't really matter.

I actually agree with what you said for the most part in your last post. After posting that CNN link, I saw the article about how the CNN crew got captured and they used " thugs" "jerk", and thought "oh shit it's gonna be easy for someone to point out the fault in this site".

CNN and MSNBC aren't my ideas of perfect newssites either. I just noticed you weren't critical of the BBC, so as a comparison I was trying to bring some sites that had an equivalent sized audience ( or the closest thing to it). But like I said, since you've clarified what you've meant, it doesn't even matter.