Netrual News Sources

Defense related and not covered in the other categories? Then it goes here.
dameonmac14
Regular contributor
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:39 am

Thu May 03, 2012 9:35 pm

I will be editing as I find out more, and I invite everyone to post as they discover neutral (or as close to neutral as they can get) news sites.

NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative): http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/threats/?mgh=h ... .org&mgf=1

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/

BBC (if not neutral, at least without drama like CNN): http://www.bbc.com/

****more as I find them****
Commander William Adama: Sometimes, you have to roll a hard six.

"I would prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my lifetime, so that I may assure peace for the future."

DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 6030
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Fri May 04, 2012 2:38 am

Despite the lack of neutrality of many sources of news, fortunately we really only need to concern ourselves with what is actually happening, not necessarily the motivation behind it.

If, say, Russia mobilised its forces and started marching on the Middle East, that would be an objective fact. When it comes to reporting this objective fact, however, is where bias comes in. One news source will report that "Russia is uniting in solidarity with the belaboured Palestinians against the ruthless Jews." Another will say "Russia marches toward Second Holocaust to finish what Hitler started." Both report the same event, but put their own spin on it. From our standpoint, we really only care what is happening, not really why. The why is only relevant when trying to guess what is going to happen next, how far it will go, and will it end up going All The Way.

Now, politics (for "politics", substitute the words "personal motivation") certainly will affect what happens. And so it is necessary to know what people are thinking and why. This is a more difficult area and far more subject to personal bias in reporting.

Is it possible to find a truly objective journalist? I don't really think so. So everything you read will always carry the caveat "Buyer Beware".

dameonmac14
Regular contributor
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:39 am

Fri May 04, 2012 3:41 am

DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:Despite the lack of neutrality of many sources of news, fortunately we really only need to concern ourselves with what is actually happening, not necessarily the motivation behind it.

If, say, Russia mobilised its forces and started marching on the Middle East, that would be an objective fact. When it comes to reporting this objective fact, however, is where bias comes in. One news source will report that "Russia is uniting in solidarity with the belaboured Palestinians against the ruthless Jews." Another will say "Russia marches toward Second Holocaust to finish what Hitler started." Both report the same event, but put their own spin on it. From our standpoint, we really only care what is happening, not really why. The why is only relevant when trying to guess what is going to happen next, how far it will go, and will it end up going All The Way.

Now, politics (for "politics", substitute the words "personal motivation") certainly will affect what happens. And so it is necessary to know what people are thinking and why. This is a more difficult area and far more subject to personal bias in reporting.

Is it possible to find a truly objective journalist? I don't really think so. So everything you read will always carry the caveat "Buyer Beware".

True enough. ^-^
Commander William Adama: Sometimes, you have to roll a hard six.

"I would prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my lifetime, so that I may assure peace for the future."

Post Reply