Where Do You Go For Factual Unbiased News And Views ?

[JSixpack]

BBC news drives me nuts, how anyone thinks it has left wing bias is beyond me.

True, despite everything, Baghdad Broadcasting Corp does have a certain modicum of objectivity remaining. For real left wing bias, the fresh red meat, do check out the following People's Revolutionary Liberation News sites:

http://www.medialens.org

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

http://www.monbiot.com

http://pilger.carlton.com/

[Spee]

Fair and unbiased ... eh ??

Anyone who said "The Independent" from the UK, you should be ashamed of yourself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...ion-803095.html

A more unfair, biased and factually false record of the United States has not been seen for a long time.

For starters, the headline reads "depression." The US is not in a recession, much less as depression. And as for all the bad-mouthing the US social programs, all I can say is pot-kettle-black given the socialist state the the UK is.

Now on to the photograph, which has the caption "disadvantaged Americans queue for aid in New York. Given that the headline of the article is talking about 2008 (i.e., current events), it is factually inaccurate to say nothing of misleading to use a photograph from 2005.

As for the people queuing in line, they weren't queuing "for aid" from a government social program. They were queued because someone was giving out free winter jackets. And the line was extra long that day because the Mayor of New York was going to personally be handing out the jackets.

So shame on you Independent, and shame on anyone who buys that rag in hopes of finding fair and unbiased reporting.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Spee

[freitag1]

The best coverage if you are interested in a certain topic are blogs.

I have several Bangkok related blogs I check every day (not stickman), afghanistan blogs (best friend is over there right now) and some other news blogs for various areas of interest. If I just want the usual world news stuff I check google news.

[freitag1]

Just found this interesting documentary about Thailand that was posted by aljazeera 20 hours ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ7J5dsvGcc&feature=user

[slackula]

Now on to the photograph, which has the caption "disadvantaged Americans queue for aid in New York. Given that the headline of the article is talking about 2008 (i.e., current events), it is factually inaccurate to say nothing of misleading to use a photograph from 2005.

As for the people queuing in line, they weren't queuing "for aid" from a government social program. They were queued because someone was giving out free winter jackets.

Now who's being misleading? Nowhere does the article say that they were queuing for anything from a gov. social program. The focus of the article is on the increased number of people on food stamps, and the article even points out that this likely due to other factors in addition to the faltering economy.

[HS Mauberley]

A more unfair, biased and factually false record of the United States has not been seen for a long time.

Hmmm. So this ludicrous claim - presumably you think that all those little missives from Osama are more fair and less biased - is based wholly on a criticism of the article's title and accompanying photograph, yes? And you want to offer advice on what is considered unbiased. Forgive me if I pass on that.

[Spee]

Now on to the photograph, which has the caption "disadvantaged Americans queue for aid in New York. Given that the headline of the article is talking about 2008 (i.e., current events), it is factually inaccurate to say nothing of misleading to use a photograph from 2005.

As for the people queuing in line, they weren't queuing "for aid" from a government social program. They were queued because someone was giving out free winter jackets.

Now who's being misleading? Nowhere does the article say that they were queuing for anything from a gov. social program. The focus of the article is on the increased number of people on food stamps, and the article even points out that this likely due to other factors in addition to the faltering economy.

Gimme a <deleted>' break!

The whole context of the article was about the (non-existent) despression and government social programs and the photograph was utilized with that intent.

What did you think .... that these people were lined up because the corner liquor store was handing out free beer?

As for the claims in the article, history has proven time and time again that one thing is true about government run social programs. There is NEVER enough money. Freeloaders will always prefer a handout to a hand up, and a lot of politicians get elected time and again by giving in to these non-productive special interest groups and their bleeding heart advocates. All the article indicates is that the US is trying to become as big a nanny state as a lot of other countries. Unemployment and freeloaders are issues for the individual states and market economies to deal with, not the national government.

[HS Mauberley]

The whole context of the article was about the (non-existent) despression...

which reminded me of:

[Spee]

A more unfair, biased and factually false record of the United States has not been seen for a long time.

Hmmm. So this ludicrous claim -

Hardly ludicrous. More like right on the money.

The article states the US is in a depression. That is a LIE. As you probably don't know the definition, a LIE is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

The photograph is known to have been taken in 2005. That is a FACT. To use it in an article discussing current events of 2008 is further evidence of willful intent to deceive.

Ergo, in the context of journalistic ethics, the article is an unconscionable sham. The writer who generated such a load of crap and the editor who approved it for publication should be held accountable. (yeah ... as if)

[slackula]

A more unfair, biased and factually false record of the United States has not been seen for a long time.

Hmmm. So this ludicrous claim -

Hardly ludicrous. More like right on the money.

The article states the US is in a depression. That is a LIE. As you probably don't know the definition, a LIE is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

The photograph is known to have been taken in 2005. That is a FACT. To use it in an article discussing current events of 2008 is further evidence of willful intent to deceive.

Ergo, in the context of journalistic ethics, the article is an unconscionable sham. The writer who generated such a load of crap and the editor who approved it for publication should be held accountable. (yeah ... as if)

lol.

[polecat]

Freeloaders will always prefer a handout to a hand up, and a lot of politicians get elected time and again by giving in to these non-productive special interest groups and their bleeding heart advocates.

I think that this comment, along with your earlier (wholly inaccurate) suggestion that the UK was a socialist state tell us all we need to know.

[Spee]

along with your earlier (wholly inaccurate) suggestion that the UK was a socialist state tell us all we need to know.

Methinks you had better recheck your definitions for socialism, fact and inaccurate.

Through the tax structure, the central government takes well more than 50% of the income of the citizenry on average. That simple fact alone indicates that it is involved in planning and control of at least 50% of the national economy. That matches one definition of socialism precisely which makes my statement an undeniable FACT rather than "wholly inaccurate."

That doesn't make the UK a bad place to live. On the contrary, I quite like it here and there is a lot to be said for the British way of life, but I am buffered from the excessive tax burden foisted upon the average UK citizen. Without that buffer, I couldn't afford to and wouldn't be able to live here in my chosen lifestyle. Recent trends have completely reversed all of the fiscal conservative progress of the Thatcher years. She was one of the great leaders of all time. Brown on the other hand ... well .... big government tax and spend politician comes to mind.

[BigSnake]

Channel News Asia, Singopore.

[padfoot]

Comedian Rush Limbaugh is my source for the unvarnished truth.

[HS Mauberley]

The article states the US is in a depression.

No, it doesn’t. Had you read the article, rather than just regurgitating more noxious rubbish from whatever semi-literate neo-con blogs give you the horn, you would have noticed that the only place the word ‘depression’ is used is only in the title. What the article says is the recession stalks the US. This is not a contentious idea.

the article is an unconscionable sham. The writer who generated such a load of crap and the editor who approved it for publication should be held accountable.

An unconscionable sham? For God's sake, grow up. As someone who, in a thread on unbiased news, cites Rush Limburgh as a source, you’re hardly in a position to come up with nonsense like this.

Through the tax structure, the central government takes well more than 50% of the income of the citizenry on average.

No it doesn’t. The tax burden stands at about 38%of GDP.

That simple fact alone indicates that it is involved in planning and control of at least 50% of the national economy

No, it doesn’t. The government raises money in tax. It doesn’t dictate what you do to generate this tax revenue any more than a mugger dictates what you do for a living by stealing your money.

She was one of the great leaders of all time

No, she wasn’t.

Recent trends have completely reversed all of the fiscal conservative progress of the Thatcher years

Under the Thatcher governments, the tax burden averaged 37.1% of GDP. What a reversal.

[slackula]

but I am buffered from the excessive tax burden foisted upon the average UK citizen. Without that buffer, I couldn't afford to and wouldn't be able to live here in my chosen lifestyle.

Are you an illegal immigrant?

You are decrying the very same tax system that has produced the lifestyle that you enjoy.

I presume that if you or a loved one falls sick then you head off to the nearest private clinic and pay cash, while your local private security firm protects you and puts out the fire that burns your house down and chases the chavs off your lawn.

If that is not the case then you are a ridiculous hypocrite who needs to resign the commission from the 101 Chairborne Brigade and enlist in GWB's righteous army™

[Spee]

but I am buffered from the excessive tax burden foisted upon the average UK citizen. Without that buffer, I couldn't afford to and wouldn't be able to live here in my chosen lifestyle.

Are you an illegal immigrant?

You are decrying the very same tax system that has produced the lifestyle that you enjoy.

I presume that if you or a loved one falls sick then you head off to the nearest private clinic and pay cash, while your local private security firm protects you and puts out the fire that burns your house down and chases the chavs off your lawn.

If that is not the case then you are a ridiculous hypocrite who needs to resign the commission from the 101 Chairborne Brigade and enlist in GWB's righteous army™

You should look before you leap with all of your snide remarks, slack(off)ula.

My residency status is in compliance with UK law and my (substantial) taxes are fully paid. I get no support other than what a person with my status is allowed. Oh, and I also pay US taxes, too.

I am able to enjoy my chosen lifestyle because I work my ass off night and day to achieve and maintain it. My lifestyle would be even better if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes. On the latter point, I think it is fair to say that the majority of citizens in both countries would say the same.

The fact that left-leaning, narrow-minded stiffs like you seem to have a problem with a strong work ethic and preference for smaller government, is your cross to bear, not mine.

[Spee]

the very same tax system that has produced the lifestyle that you enjoy.

An economist worth his salt will tell you that your statement is an oxymoron. Tax systems remove money from peoples' lifestyles. They do not produce lifestyles for people, unless you consider being on the dole a lifestyle.

[Spee]

the article is an unconscionable sham. The writer who generated such a load of crap and the editor who approved it for publication should be held accountable.

An unconscionable sham? For God's sake, grow up. As someone who, in a thread on unbiased news, cites Rush Limburgh as a source, you’re hardly in a position to come up with nonsense like this.

You are the only one who isn't reading. I never claimed Limbaugh to be unbiased, and in fact, explicitly stated that he is just the opposite. Contrary to popular opinion, people can be biased and still speak the truth. The problem is when people speak the truth and listeners own biases get in the way of hearing it. Instead they hear only what they want to hear. In his time, Martin Luther King was no different. He was extremely biased but he spoke the truth. One segment of his listeners (white race hatemongers) let their own biases get in the way and led to his persecution and eventually to his assassination.

Through the tax structure, the central government takes well more than 50% of the income of the citizenry on average.

No it doesn’t. The tax burden stands at about 38%of GDP.

Your statement is factually false. Even the low end estimates place it at 46%. The actual numbers are indeed well over 50% as I stated (correctly) and just the health services alone are over one quarter of that. People like you come up with some ridiculously low value because things like "social contributions," fuel taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc., are left out of the equation. Perhaps you should do what I do and read the actual report:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/the...y/ukea_07q4.pdf

That simple fact alone indicates that it is involved in planning and control of at least 50% of the national economy

No, it doesn’t. The government raises money in tax. It doesn’t dictate what you do to generate this tax revenue any more than a mugger dictates what you do for a living by stealing your money.

Your associating heavy taxation with being mugged sounds an awful lot like a Freudian slip!

That aside, your point is nonsensical. There is no correlation between someone's freedom to choose type of employment and the size of a government's tax levy. What is important to understand is that most people work so that they may try to live in the lifestyle of their choosing. When a government takes half of it, they are telling people how they must spend half of their income. That is hardly economic freedom. It is a fact of life that someone else will never do as good of a job at managing and spending your money as you yourself would.

Methinks you need a little attitude adjustment from the good doctor:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...9937418232&