what goal is Bush Iraq War?

[Billy]

We often see the error.

[ScottSolomon]

I would say that an impartial news source would be equally critical of all sides of an issue. It would not use passive voice when reporting unfavorable information about the government's actions. It would not mix argument and news reportage. It would not wrap itself in the flag in order to make it appear more patriotic. It would skeptically and critically analyze what politicians say and do.

BBC is an example - as near to impartial as I can get. If you read anything from the AMerican media, we get a passive voice about our governments fouls, we get the official version of events prefered over actual - on the ground perspectives, we get political claims reported without any sort of fact checking, and you get news from the American media that has been subplanted with a very specific agenda.

To read a little more about the state of the media, go here:

http://www.fair.org/
very fair and honest site that is critical of the mass media, what they report, and what they do not report. This is probably the best jumping off point.

http://www.reuters.com/
Barebones news, but this is about as fair as it gets.

http://www.indymedia.org/
Good site - but I think it swings the pendulum a litle far to the left on a lot of issues. It definitely provides a contrast, though.

http://www.dailyhowler.com
Great site that highlights the corporate media's ceaseless fawning over the right. The site is equally critical of Clinton on issues that he was al fault with, but I am sure a Republican will claim that the guy uses nothing but lies. The site is well researched, and you can go into LexixNexis with questionable claims and they always check out. The guy has a lot of integrity as a media critic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Great site - this is what news should be. Critical about all sides, and it does not go out of it's way to seem more patriotic. You will never see stupid crap like "homicide bombers" in BBC world news. The site may be censored in China. I know that Rupert Murdoch allowed China to censor the BBC World News satellite feed so that mainland Chinese do not have unencumbered access to it.

http://www.projectcensored.org/
Good site to see what you did not see on the corporate media.

http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/
Another good site for independant media analysis.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/
Good site covering stuff no one ever hears about.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Slightly partican site that mocks the corpporate media.


Overall, I think that it is unreasonable to expect one news source to be completely objective. This is why I read multiple news sources and I take the aggregate informaiton from differing perspectives as a whole.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is always a danger of going to multiple news sources and culling statements that bolster what you've made up your mind to believe.

[ScottSolomon]

This is certainly true. Which is why you have to be aware of the contradictions - note them - and understand where they come from. Sometimes the contradictions occur because reporters selectively report information that reenforces their bias. Sometimes media sources are wary of creating stories that are critical of the powers that be. Sometimes meid stories use garbage information and report heresay as news. Sometimes media sources are simply in error or are lying.

I am certainly not credulous. I do not simply accept a story because it reenforces my bias or reject stories that challenge my personal beliefs.