[Below refers to getting news on US [esp US domestic] politics]

I am a foreigner who has followed CNN on TV for probably the last 30 years, and on-line maybe 20, and until the US turmoil that started when the current POTUS took office, I thought they were reasonably neutral. [Yes, foreigner]

While I am seriously considering putting up a huge ourchairman poster outside my home [while realizing that as I live in Japan, it would not have much effect ;-) ] I am fed up with CNN, and wonder where to go instead. Recently my choice has been BBC, and, I think they have been + will be reasonably neutral on US news no matter who is their PM.

But, any good, nation wide neutral US sources?

p.s. My sincere apologies if I chose the wrong forum! I did not find any "News" or "Media" forum on StackExchange. [More than grateful if you tell me to post this on forum X!]

  • 5
    I'm interested, as a non-American as well, what in particular have you found political and/or biased about CNN? And perhaps more importantly, how do you know that CNN is biased if you don't regularly follow other US news sources aside from BBC, which as a foreign media focuses only on narrow field of US topics? – Geenimetsuri Jul 28 '19 at 11:00
  • Huomenta, presumed compatriot, to be honest, knowing the polarization, I was trying [in my bad English] to make my question as balanced as possible [Based on you message I apparently leaned too much towards [whatever, pro-life, unpatriotic?] , so I guess I should have maybe said [instead of "huge"] "huger than America has never seen, really enormous!!! They all tell me, so!" [Did I go too far ;-)] To your question, I admit for using "instead" a bit hastily, and my intention was not to say I wouldn't follow the others. I am too talkative and need another comment field to continue... – Tuomo Jul 28 '19 at 13:42
  • I am not such a huge news media consumer, but: Now thinking about it, when the [I guess you can't call it the first, so, let's say 1990 or maybe 1991] the missiles from the US Navy ships flew to Iraq, CNN may in fact have been biased as well, as I remember the reporters being placed on [maybe even figther] jets and maybe promoting people to join the armed forces. But, I have not done proper research, so while I think, I also admit that can't undoubtedly prove that CNN is biased. So, maybe it is more of a hope and assumption that things are not as bad as CNN sometimes reports. – Tuomo Jul 28 '19 at 13:56
  • 3
    "My sincere apologies if I chose the wrong forum! I did not find any "News" or "Media" forum on StackExchange." Stack Exchange doesn't have forums. It is a question and answer site. If not here, the next closest stack would be Software Recommendations. In general, Stack Exchange frowns on recommendation questions, as they tend to be opinion-based and lead to discussions. You might consider if you would prefer a discussion, which would point you to Reddit or something like that instead. – Brythan Jul 28 '19 at 20:31
  • I am sorry for wrong terminology [= using forum] + thank you, but if SW reccommendations was the closest, then I chose correctly + Yes, I appreciate SE for it not being a discussion forum [= I appreciate it having you and many other fact based contributors] I also realize that while my post may have in that sense had a bad influence [pushing SE towards being opinon-based] that was not my intention. I admit I chose to ask here as I thought asking it in a neutral way would give neutral answers; a point where I was right, with you and @Joe C as living examples. Thank you very much! – Tuomo Jul 28 '19 at 20:57

There are a number of organisations which have done some research on this (including AllSides and Ad Fontes Media).

They tend to suggest the most centrist sources include the BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, Associated Press and Wall Street Journal, among others.

Important caveat: "centrist" does not always mean "unbiased". It can mean showing different biases at different times. It can also mean that not all arguments or perspectives may be shown. So be sure to consume as part of a balanced media diet.

(Disclosure: I have no affiliation with any of these organisations.)

  • 1
    After digesting AllSides & Ad Fontes Media: [While I knew that CNN and Fox are not the extremes], I was shocked by esp Daily KOS. When I [exchange student] was reading USA Today at a campus 1/4 century ago, I simply thought it was too much focused on sports, and too little focused on "foreign stuff" [which of course was normal for media back then], but maybe I will need to revisit this, as they apparently are at least neutral... this confrontation in the great COUNTRY called US [and, which I hope I can some day again call a NATION makes me sad. Sorry if offended someone! – Tuomo Jul 28 '19 at 14:50
  • 3
    The problem with "centrist" is deciding exactly where the center happens to be. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has IMHO some very decided biases, even though they're not conventional political ones. (For instance, it tends to provide a platform for global warming denialists, or used to.) Likewise the BBC tends to have the biases of British culture. Really, about the only thing you can do is read a diversity of sources. – jamesqf Jul 28 '19 at 18:14
  • 1
    Note: The Wall Street Journal was purchased by Rupert Murdoch (Fox News owner) in 2007, and mediabiasfactcheck states that it is right-biased with mixed factuality. mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal – John Jul 29 '19 at 22:38

There are no neutral news sources in the United States. The Pew Research Center made this graphic based on polling:

Trust levels of news sources by ideological group

From it we can see that exactly one organization was more trusted than distrusted by every ideological grouping, The Wall Street Journal. And while the Wall Street Journal may not be liberal/conservative biased, it is business biased. It is pro-business all the time.

Seven more sources were more trusted by conservatives than liberals: The Blaze; Fox News; Breitbart; The Drudge Report; The Sean Hannity Show; The Glenn Beck Program; The Rush Limbaugh Show. And three of those are just shows on a larger network, not networks in their own right. Four sources managed to be equally distrusted and trusted by consistent conservatives: The Economist; the BBC; Google News; The Guardian. Buzzfeed is distrusted by everyone. The other twenty-three are more distrusted than trusted by consistent conservatives and more trusted than distrusted by consistent liberals.

There are no centrist sources distrusted by both consistent liberals and conservatives but trusted by those more in the center. The Wall Street Journal and Buzzfeed come closest, but I wouldn't describe either of them as unbiased.

It's noteworthy that three of the four organizations who are never more distrusted than trusted by anyone are foreign. This may mean that consistent conservatives simply aren't that familiar with the BBC, the Economist, and the Guardian, so they haven't formed a negative opinion.

Part of the problem here is that even the international sources still have their internal biases. The BBC reporters don't have to choose between Republicans and Democrats. But they do still have their own biases. For example, every BBC employee in the United Kingdom has government provided healthcare. This gives them a somewhat slanted view of any US healthcare discussion.

You could try watching Fox News. Shepard Smith Reporting and Fox News Sunday are, to my view, somewhat liberal slanted. If you thought that CNN was neutral until 2017, this might appear neutral to you. Of course, this would involve skipping most of the other shows, particularly the evening opinion shows.

The closest US sources to the BBC would be ABC News and Google News. Google News has the same pattern of trust, but it's just a news aggregator. It doesn't have TV shows. ABC News does, but it is more distrusted than trusted by consistent conservatives (not about equal like the BBC and Google News). This may mean that it is better known among consistent conservatives. It would not be surprising if the group that doesn't know enough to have an opinion would have a negative opinion if they knew more.

This graphic is from 2014. It might be interesting to see how these responses have shifted since. What would the responses look like in 2019? From reports of the viewership numbers, it sounds like you aren't the only one who has lost trust in CNN.

  • 3
    This answer would be great if the graphic came from 2018 or 2019. In 2014, despite widespread acknowledgement of media bias among those 'in the know'; the public was largely ignorant of the extent of bias because the media at least attempted to hide their biases. Beginning in 2017, nearly all the media threw away their shroud of journalistic integrity and stopped pretending to be unbiased in any way. Thus, the 2014 graphic is so meaningless compared to views of today that it makes this answer meaningless for anything other than historical perspective. – Dunk Jul 31 '19 at 18:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .