Non-Partisan Unbiased news outlet?

[bcla]

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.

There was the 1982 election for Governor of California. There had been consistent polling data indicating that Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was in the lead. He was the first major black candidate for Governor. He lost by 1%, and the ways the plllong turned out was called the "Bradley Effect". The premise was that even though the polling was anonymous, a proportion of people being polled didn't want to admit that they wouldn't vote for black candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

 

[wilkeliza]

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.

A lot of the times it is because they don't want those around them to know who they voted for so they say who the popular person is.

Not political but when it comes to movie reviews when they stop people coming out of a screening of the movie most people are going to say it was good because they got in for free and would feel bad hurting that relationship by giving it a bad review.

 

[lizabu]

All news stations or shows have a spin they put on a story. You could watch a conservative station and then watch a liberal one and the truth of the matter probably lays in the middle somewhere.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

There was the 1982 election for Governor of California. There had been consistent polling data indicating that Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was in the lead. He was the first major black candidate for Governor. He lost by 1%, and the ways the plllong turned out was called the "Bradley Effect". The premise was that even though the polling was anonymous, a proportion of people being polled didn't want to admit that they wouldn't vote for black candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

The Bradley effect eh? Well that's nothing compared to the Tubbs effect.

 

[tvguy]

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.

BINGO!

People LOVE to lie, or at the very least give Politically Correct answers. It is a huge challenge in politics, and in marketing.
Ask Taco Bell about their "Border Light" disaster of 1995. All the polling and research, MOST EVERYONE told them they would like to have lower calorie versions of Taco Bell food on the menu. So they spent $75 million making it happen. Actions speak louder than words, because they dropped it in 1996 because when people got to the restaurants, they ignored all the signs, and advertising and bought the good old fashion calorie and fat loaded items, and the healthier options sat unsold.
But of course, does ANYONE really go to any fast food restaurant in search of healthy food? No way, we want fat,we want grease, we want taste.

 

[DopeyDame]

There was the 1982 election for Governor of California. There had been consistent polling data indicating that Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was in the lead. He was the first major black candidate for Governor. He lost by 1%, and the ways the plllong turned out was called the "Bradley Effect". The premise was that even though the polling was anonymous, a proportion of people being polled didn't want to admit that they wouldn't vote for black candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

The Bradley effect is absolutely real, but also very well known by competent and scientific pollsters. They use several different methods to get around it - one of the ones I found really interesting is not to ask who that person is voting for, but to ask who they think their neighbor is voting for. That gives the person cover to say "well, of course *I* would vote for [black person/woman/alien from planet Zercon] but I'm just not sure if Tom next door will do it. They also are very consious about the makeup [racial/sex/politics/age/etc] to try and get an accurate representation and will weight each person's input differently.

As for exit polling being unreliable, I'd love to see some more info on that. Since most of the major networks that call the elections are basing it on polling data, rather than actual results, (which is how you see them calling a state for XYZ with 1% of precincts reporting), I'd be really surprised to hear that they were wildly inaccurate.

ETA: To address OPs original question, I really like the NPR Politics Podcast. I do think they have a slight lean, but they offer a ton of facts and a lot of behind the scenes explanations for how elections work.

 

[aprilchem]

The BBC is a good one.

I agree with this. I get nearly all my news from the BBC. They do a lot of coverage on American politics.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

Nobody said they were looking to the polls as any type of decision-making tool, simply as a suggestion of how the race was shaping up.

 

[cabanafrau]

Recently read a biography of Henry Luce, the man who founded Time, Life, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, etc. It was surprising to discover that he insisted the coverage in Time always leaned with a bias -- and not always leaned in a single direction either. I was not expecting that.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

I would also suggest the Christian Science Monitor for the best in unbiased coverage of news. It also gets very in depth in the coverage of stories, doesn't just gloss over the surface.

 

[Redcon1]

Real Clear Politics is a news-gathering site with articles from both sides of the aisle. They also have polls that appear to be based on a national average from the different polling companies.

 

[JoeA]

We don't have "news" any longer. We have entertainers who are driving ratings so they can sell advertising. And we have this 24/7!

 

[gwynne]

We don't have "news" any longer. We have entertainers who are driving ratings so they can sell advertising. And we have this 24/7!

If you choose to view infotainment current event channels, probably true.

There are plenty of good sources, you just have to take the time to find them. I am continually impressed with the hard work that is done by reputable journalists and reporters around the world as well as in the US.

 

[Magpie]

Like others here, I watch SkyNews, and the BBC. Also, I personally find Al Jazeera America to be an excellent source of non-partisan news (albeit with long, sometimes densely-written articles).

And if I want "just the facts", then I go directly to Reuters. They're almost neutral to a fault.

 

[rwdavis2]

Doesn't exist

This. All news organizations have a bias. Either explicitly by the reporters or indirectly by ignoring some news events. Best to read several sources.

 

[Colleen27]

There is some bias to just about anything, and there will be as long as humans are reporting and producing the news. We all bring our worldviews to our work and journalism isn't any different in that regard even when there is a genuine effort to be as neutral as possible. And the quest for fairness can go to far - equal time, for example, when facts/science clearly favor one position over the other.

In general, major print media is less prone to overt bias than television media. And some web-only publications are doing work that is every bit as good as print (538, ProPublica) while others deal entirely in audience-driven partisanship.