What source for political information is unbiased?

Fox News

AM Talk Radio

The only way I can affect change is to vote.

As an individual, if I choose I can run for office, or form a pac, or do one of many things, but it is not what I want to do, so all I can do is vote, complain and write my representatives.

Therefore, what I have learned to do is watch from the sidelines, and when the smoke clears and the legislation passed, and everything put in place is when I know the truth.

That is why I did not get involved in the feeding frenzy post 911. I knew on that day, especially with the talking heads spewing their hate and crap, that we were going to war. I sat back, folded my arms and waited for us to destroy another piece of this great country.

To answer your question, I found in the past the Christian Science Monitor was pretty good, but they have digressed so I don't think they hold that high ideal as they did in the past and is one of the reasons I became a casual reader. In the past they went far deeper into the news, explained why things were happening and what brought on the problems. They are not a religious newspaper despite the name. But to this day they are better then most.

.

.

The CBO is unbiased. They are usually way under when they estimate the costs of things, but that is just being a government worker, not a bias.

As a conservative ID beleive a democrat that cited a peer reviewed scientific journal, but they wont cite them. Most of them saythere is no such thing as global warming.

CSPAN and the Library of Congress are the only unbiased sources - they're the actual political events and documents with no one interpreting for you.

It's a lot to digest though. As soon as someone is summarizing, some amount of bias is unavoidable. The only solution is to read a variety of sources and do your own critical thinking.

I think Fox is horribly biased. MSNBC is a bit much at times too. Most of the rest of the major outlets - the BBC, NPR, CNN, ABC, etc - are OK if you read from all of them.

TV news is sensationalist with no depth. Read their online versions.

It means that accepting what someone in the media says is not automatic. If the Huffington post says something then it is suspicious before a repub reads it. If you quote Glen Beck the a Dem will not believe it.

When the 2 agree or one will not respond then it starts becoming believable.

Like I tell my children, the ways to find the truth.

Most of the times I find that R's will have a site that is exactly the opposite of what they are claiming.

You cannot just take a article without checking.

Now, with regards to FAUX, take a look at what THEY even say:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/10/12/fox-admits...

When ppl cherry pick it does not tell you the health of the orchard. It just says how one or two of the cherries are bad.

Bias is EVERYWHERE.

Here is an interesting report on a study which shows how the human brain ignores bias when it agrees with the observers point of view:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_poli...

That is why you use their own sites against them like this........ LOL

Fox News poll

Asked which president is “more responsible for the current state of the economy,” only 18 percent say President Obama. Fifty-eight percent say former President George W. Bush. Nine percent blame both of them.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/102909_poll.pd...

See what can they say to that? BWAAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!

The site I recommend for the unbiased truth is http://www.larouchepac.com/

I'd say go with history. Cause and effects. Come up with rational logic to why you believe the cause matches the effect.

You mean Unpolitically correct, right?

http://www.newnation.cc/forums/index.php/

www.vnnforum.com

www.stormfront.org

The best sources to see what the politically correct media is hiding to ya.