Politically-biased news sources

We all like to complain about about Fox News for being a right-biased source, or MSNBC being left-biased etc, but don't we all have a personal bias of some sort? We always choose the sources that share our views. So, I dedicate this thread to a recommendations of biased sources.

For conservatives:
Fox News (foxnews.com)
CNS News (cnsnews.com)
Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk)
Drudge Report (drudgereport.com)
Worldnet Daily (worldnetdaily.com)
Life news (lifenews.com)
The Washington Times (washtimes.com)

For liberals:
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
MSNBC (msnbc.com)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
New York times (newyorktimes.com)
ABC news (abcnews.com)
CBS news (cbsnews.com)
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Feel free to add your own recommendations.

>but don't we all have a personal bias of some sort?
Are you seriously using this as an argument to justify the gross bias demonstrated by Fox News?

>>2
To justify? No. To point out that everyone flocks to a biased source as long as it agrees with them.

Reality has a liberal bias.

That said, while the conservative media (Fox being the obvious example) is truly abominable, their liberal counterparts aren't much better. You can't trust any of them to provide an objective view of anything.

The real problem is that across the board, even looking at public media, actual news reporting makes up a very tiny fraction of airtime. Instead of talking in depth about what's going on (especially when it comes to international events), you only get the briefest of blurbs and then you're back to listening to some economist/lobbyist/activist/politician/bureaucrat spout their bullshit for an hour.

The only way you can actually become informed about current events anymore is to do your own research on the internet, hopefully streamlined with a news aggregator pulling from sources like the AP. So what's the fucking point? This isn't news media, it's infotainment.

The daily show
The colbert report

Well, every news source is biased of course. A better question to ask is who actually makes some legitimate attempt to be objective and what motivates them to do this, as opposed to those who see objectivity as just another gimmick and only do so relative to their reader's wishes.

Reality has a liberal bias.

"Liberal" in the classical sense, that is. Modern liberalism is as much a idealistic dogma as radical conservatism.

>>7
an*

Fuck.

For truth seekers:
Mathaba (mathaba.net)
Algeria ISP (algeria-isp.com)
Libya S.O.S (libyasos.blogspot.com)
Syria Online (syriaonline.sy)
The Ozyism (ozyism.blogspot.com)
Al Gaddafi speaks (africaindependence.com/AlGaddafiOrgAlGathafiOrgAlGaddafiSpeaksSpeechesofAlGaddafi.aspx)

>>9
What's next? The North Korean central news agency?

>>10
Thank you for noticing. I knew I forgot some.

Puh-lease, those are way too main stream.  Check out the Eritrean Ministry of Information if you want the real facts.  http://www.shabait.com/index.php
Eritrea has the least biased news anywhere, much better than even North Korea! Just ask reporters without borders:
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html

BBC
The BBC is only for people who like being several hours behind the times and only hearing the official party line of the ruling government on any international topic.

>>13
only hearing the official party line of the ruling government

Fits liberals perfectly.

>>13
>only hearing the official party line of the ruling government on any international topic.
What? Do you even watch or read the BBC?

Oh wait, silly question. Of course you don't, otherwise you'd know better.

>>15
you're wrong just because
What kind of shitty argument is that?

>>16
Not one I used. The BBC pretty much always has something opposed groups talking on any topic, not just "the official party line". The statement is so easily dis-proven simply by watching the news that's it's totally ridiculous.

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/25/us-slumps-in-press-freedom-ran.html

Press freedom in US slumps to number 47. This is pathetic for a Western nation. Seriously.

>>17
Well, honestly, I'd rather have the BBC for a news source than say a news source from an Eastern European country (if I were living in such a country). But it's not inconceivable that British (and possibly American) intelligence agencies manipulate the news (like the BBC) as an ad hoc form of propaganda for their own little agendas (barring really out there conspiracy theories). Read about Chomsky's Propaganda Model, and you'll see how Labour (or is it New Labour?) under Tony Blair was able to propagandize the masses into initially supporting the Iraq War.

In summation, the BBC is in and of itself not considered harmful, but some things it reports on and the way it reports them can be, so proceed with caution. Publications like the Daily Mail, are to be considered harmful, though.

>>18
>But it's not inconceivable that British (and possibly American) intelligence agencies manipulate the news (like the BBC)
Okay, sure, it's "possible" but meaningless to speculate on unless you have tangible evidence and proof to support it.

All media sources are biased.  They all will use half-truths, if not outright lies, to promote the agendas of those who fund them.  Never forget: he who pays the piper calls the tune!  I think the only way to see through the propaganda and spin is to compare the stories from multiple outlets, preferably outlets with different sources of funding.

Good counter-balance to the “pro-western” viewpoints espoused by the sources listed by the OP can be found, for example, here:
www.rt.com
http://www.news.cn/english/
http://www.presstv.ir/
http://www.plenglish.com/
http://www.telesurtv.net  (Spanish/Portuguese)
http://www.aljazeera.com/

>>20
Al Jazeera has turned into a extremely pro-American, pro-Zionist media outlet.

>>21
Not surprising given Al-Jazeera’s history (joint venture between BBC and the Saudi government) and its current main sponsor (the Sheikh of Qatar).  As I said, always follow the money.

>>19
Operation Mockingbird. It's not unreasonable to suspect that the operation is still in effect. The American security and intelligence apparatus has significantly expanded and improved since the 1950s. You want a source, you're going to have to request a Freedom of Information Act request to see current media manipulation done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies (this implies they actually give you that information without a court order). Good luck.