posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:17 AM
What I tend to do is look, not so much for unbiased news sources, as you're pretty unlikely to actually find one of those, but rather to look for
sources who's bias is known. By understanding what biases a news source has, you'll be better able to figure out what is fact, what is hyperbole,
and what is fiction. By checking multiple sources, of many different biases, you'll be able to get a clearer picture of what's going on.
For example, I often check cnn.com and lemonde.fr. While CNN's website has many valid criticisms leveled against it, I go there because it's easy
to get to (7 characters typed, as opposed to 14 for Google News), and the layout's very easy to scan. Le Monde is a French daily newspaper whos site
I check partly because I read better in French than I do in Portuguese (the two non-English languages in which I'm literate), and because it's a
fairly mainstream publication in France. Each site has its own bias, at the very least they're biased towards the country-of-origin, but by being
aware of the bias I can see where the sites agree, and often more interestingly, where they disagree.
I don't limit myself to those two, though. ATS, Ars Technica, Slashdot, Barbelith Underground, NYT Online, and many others are checked. Some, such
as Ars Technica or Slashdot, are pretty limited to technology or technology-related items. Others, like ATS, have a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio,
but they make up for it by getting early announcement of some significant events. Still others, the more mainstream, I find useful because that's
what "everyone" knows, and the common wisdom, however foolish, is something that's helpful to be aware of.