Non-Partisan Unbiased news outlet?

[#1hoosierfan]

I know we can't talk politics here, and that is NOT what I want to do. Today I was interested to see who is ahead, (and by how much) in the presidential race.

Easier said than done! It seems like everyone has their "own" poll and "their" candidate is ahead or gaining and vice versa.

 

[Marchand63]

Doesn't exist

 

[gwynne]

I've always thought it wisest to read a variety of sources. Becoming dependent on one source would never work for me.
Polls? Avoid the fan boy ones. Stick with ones that are tagged scientific. At least that gives you a starting place. And there are sites that average multiple reputable scientific polls, giving a better overall result--at that particular second in time.

 

[wilkeliza]

Polls don't really mean much unless they are looking at the actual early voting numbers which are released most nights depending on the states that allow early voting. Polls are set up in such a way that the result that is wanted will be received every time. Just take the poll on fears of Zika at Disney and travel that came out a couple weeks ago. It was discovered that something like 90% of the people polled never were even planning a Disney trip in the next 18 months so it didn't really matter that they didn't want to go to Disney over fears of Zika as they weren't going anyways.


Now on the political front I like http://www.politifact.com/ they seem to be pretty level headed and treat all politicians the same calling out all lies or half truths.

 

[dlavender]

PBS seems to be pretty balanced. Definitely boring, but more balanced.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've always thought it wisest to read a variety of sources. Becoming dependent on one source would never work for me.

I have thought about starting a similar thread before, but I figured it would turn pretty quickly.

To the bolded, I am the same as you. I peruse a variety of sources to see that they have to say. Unfortunately, even search engines like Google (along with other sites like FB and Twitter) now want to influence what we see.

Life was a lot easier, it seems, when I just read our two local papers with opposing views.

 

[tvguy]

I've always thought it wisest to read a variety of sources. Becoming dependent on one source would never work for me.
Polls? Avoid the fan boy ones. Stick with ones that are tagged scientific. At least that gives you a starting place. And there are sites that average multiple reputable scientific polls, giving a better overall result--at that particular second in time.

I agree, read as many sources as you can find.
As for polls, don't pay attention to ANY of them. Make your decision based on how you feel about a candidate or an issue. Don't follow the herd.

 

[georgina]

I like the Christian Science Monitor for thoughtful articles. Definitely ignore polls.

 

[wilkeliza]

Also don't let a poll make you feel comfortable in who you voted for. Either side I don't care if your person is winning right now that doesn't mean they will be winning next Tuesday. The only way to make sure your voice is heard is if your ballot is turned in.

 

[BadPinkTink]

try watching some UK news channels online http://news.sky.com/ http://www.bbc.com/news The UK broadcasting regulations mean that both Sky and BBC have to have unbiased and impartial reporting of news. At the moment they give alot of airtime to the USA presidential elections

 

[okeydokey]

The BBC is a good one.

 

[mnrose]

Nate Silver's 538 is a good compilation and analysis of ALL the polls. He has a remarkably good track record at analyzing and distilling polling data. He called every state correctly during the last two Presidential cycles, and he was wrong on only a single Senatorial race (he doesn't attempt to do House races as polling data isn't as widely available). The Senatorial race was an extremely close race in North Dakota. So, if you want to slice and dice polling data, I'd recommend that site (google it...it comes right up).

 

[ReneeA]

Nate Silver's 538 is a good compilation and analysis of ALL the polls. He has a remarkably good track record at analyzing and distilling polling data. He called every state correctly during the last two Presidential cycles, and he was wrong on only a single Senatorial race (he doesn't attempt to do House races as polling data isn't as widely available). The Senatorial race was an extremely close race in North Dakota. So, if you want to slice and dice polling data, I'd recommend that site (google it...it comes right up).

538 is what I watch as far as polls, and he gives data pretty matter of factly without a lot of drama or hyperbole. And as a plus, he's been eerily accurate the past couple elections.

 

[#1hoosierfan]

I actually did early voting today.

I listen to several different news sources. It is just incredibly frustrating to listen to the spin each can put on the same topic.

I'm a big nerd and a "numbers" person. I am also nosey. I think it is interesting to see how the polls change after each "revelation" about a candidate. I also assume as we get closer to the election, polls will be more accurate.

 

[#1hoosierfan]

I agree, read as many sources as you can find.
As for polls, don't pay attention to ANY of them. Make your decision based on how you feel about a candidate or an issue. Don't follow the herd.

Not following the herd. I just find it all very interesting. See my comment above.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I can't find ANY..not ONE in the U.S.

 

[bcla]

try watching some UK news channels online http://news.sky.com/ http://www.bbc.com/news The UK broadcasting regulations mean that both Sky and BBC have to have unbiased and impartial reporting of news. At the moment they give alot of airtime to the USA presidential elections

I thought that Rupert Murdoch owned Sky Broadcasting.

The BBC is a good one.

Not sure about that. I recall hearing a reporter from BBC saying that they weren't necessarily trying to stay neutral if they believed it was an important issue. They have an official statement that they strive for impartiality, but that they're not necessarily neutral. I've listened to BBC broadcasts where it was pretty clear the reporter was taking sides, but still presented different viewpoints.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.​

 

[tvguy]

Not following the herd. I just find it all very interesting. See my comment above.

I never use polls in any newscast I Produce. It has become very apparent, at least here in California the last 10 years or so, people lie to pollsters. The worst being exit polls at the polling places.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Not necessarily for polls, but I tend to look at news sources that lean the opposite direction of me politically. Gives me incentive to dig deeper when it looks like they're lying (which sadly, is far too often - and easily - proven to be the case).

 

[ols386]

I never use polls in any newscast I Produce. It has become very apparent, at least here in California the last 10 years or so, people lie to pollsters. The worst being exit polls at the polling places.

That's interesting. I wonder why folks would lie at exit polls. What do they have to gain, unless they just want to mess with the results.