Verum wrote:None.I'm surprised that you would say that none are more "neutral and factually accurate than the BBC", but it's a reasonable position Pick your poison, according to your political bias.I prefer ones where there is little political bias and high level of accuracy. That's one reason I never just look to one source, but rather to many respected and accurate sources. I try to make time for individual reporters I've come to respect - none of whom happen to work for government-owned stations.Yes, so who are they? Are they known for their unbiased and facts based reporting?
Known to whom? Too often, awards and plaudits are given to 'celebrity' reporters who simply echo the consensus of the herd. Most reporters are blissfully unaware of their bias and ignorance. They just assume that those who agree with them are smart and those who don't are Nazis.
I lean toward smart female reporters like Catherine Herridge, Maria Bartiromo, Harris Faulkner, Katie Pavlich, Jennifer Griffin, etc. Fox News gives women a chance to escape the de rigueur left-wing bias of the other networks and really shine.
It isn't always easy though:
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-ho ... ork/353723 I try to balance things out with Judy Woodruff, Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow. (Just kidding Rachel. I still love you, and look forward to your eventual return to sanity.)
As Brexit-supporting free-market libertariansIsn't that a contradiction.
No. Any libertarian so confused as to be in support of the extra layers of bureaucracy and erosion of national self-determination that came with membership in the EU should simply accept their intellectual limitations and join the Labour Party.
Brexit is killing UK access to the largest free market it could have access to.
"Killing?" That sounds like an anti-Brexit BBC talking point.
Mutually beneficial trade will continue post-Brexit, just as trade between Canada and the US will if the current NAFTA renegotiation fails.
There was no shortage of debate on the Brexit issue. The present arrangement has been deemed by the voters to be undesirable, but the BBC talking heads usually side with the view that the Brexit is a ghastly mistake, foisted on the wise by unenlightened masses who are just too poor and stupid to move forward. Bigotry with RP.
It's stupid to claim (as the most successful cable news station did) to be "fair and balanced." The truth is seldom fair and it certainly doesn't need to be balanced.[color=#BF0000]The truth is balanced. It doesn't lean left or right because the concept of affiliation is irrelevant to truth. The truth simply is.
Would that it were so. The fact that most of those who fail to see BBC bias are on the political left is no accident.
A half-full glass is half-empty, but consistently seeing it as one or the other shows bias. All news organizations use 'alternative facts' (what is said, what is not said, and how it is said) to suit the narrative of their directors and the biases of their audiences.
That said, many like to present their own "truth" often based on limited experience and personal opinions rather than facts and supported evidence.
Oh yeah, those guys. Total losers, but what can we do?
What would you balance it with? CNN?
If by balance you mean balancing the BBC high level of factual accuracy with CNN's rather poor level, then I guess they are a balance of sorts.
'Auntie' does many things better than most, but I find BBC bias, ignorance and hostility concerning the USA and its president rather annoying. In fairness, I'll admit that the Canadian networks aren't much better.