Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I tend to go with NPR and The Economist. Both are biased, but their biases are relatively mild and out in the open (and, more-or-less in opposition to each other).



I think this depends a lot on what your biases are. I see both the Economist and NPR as pretty ideological sources, and that's fine. The Economist is a bit more open and up front though. NPR's central ideology is bland American boosterism and an absolute refusal to ever make value judgments. That's why you see NPR being completely incapable of making truthful statements that make the US government look bad: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22...

As far as ideologies go, that's a whole lot better than Stalinism, but I personally aspire to higher standards. Nevertheless, it is a very commonly held set of ideological priors, especially among the tote bag set (i.e., the group of people that regularly donate to NPR/PBS and thus got an NPR/PBS tote bag). Just because their ideological priors mostly match up with yours doesn't make them "unbiased".


I tend to go with the same. I've been a bit disappointed with the Economist lately, due to the recent cover Photoshopping incident (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/economist-defends-p...).

That said, I hear what their spokesperson said, but this sort of thing would never fly at most news organizations in the US.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: