Comments on: Top 5 World News Websites Guaranteed Free From Censorship

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:41:51 +0000

I think calling these sites uncensored, is REALLY stretching it, after all, in my years of viewing so called news, the reporter has increasingly, injected an opinion of their own into the mix, so to me, it should be re-named the best 5 left winged sites. How about some right winged ones, thanks.

By: David Rogers

David Rogers — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:31:09 +0000

Ryan, I appreciate your attempt to provide alternate news feeds. Right and left are relative terms, very spicy. I think what you are after is better termed balanced news, and the only way to get that with the news sources we have today is to read both conventional and alternative sources. I also appreciate your giving us examples of news sites that put less emphasis on north American pop culture. I have added your suggestions to my Google Reader feeds, knowing that now as I scan the headlines I will get a more rounded picture. Both the left and the right think theyÂ´re right: thatÂ´s cool: me, I will read as objectively as I can about each event, and then make up my own mind whatÂ´s going on out there and what we should do about it. Thank you for your help.

By: Luis Colorado

Luis Colorado — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:33:24 +0000

Several points to clarify:

1. I don’t think that there is a news media that is not censored, either internally or externally. The sources of censorship may be ideology, sponsorship, government, and so on. I have seen that on left and right news.
2. Objectivity, or lack of bias. Again, I don’t think that any human being can be totally objective. The place where we grew up, our school, our nation, our parents, our genes, and so many things shape our minds, that full objectivity can be attempted, but not always achieved.
3. Agenda: I would prefer that media outlets came out and state their ideology, vision, philosophy, and self perceived mission in this word. But, alas, I don’t think that any media outlet would like to say “we are here to satisfy our sponsors, Exxon Mobil and the oil industry, and show entertaining news.” Sadly, honesty is also out of the picture.

Personally speaking, I am a centrist-leftist, but I am happy to read the right wing news media. Sometimes they make points that I would have never considered.

The only way to get barely objective, unbiased, uncensored news is to go to national and international outlets from every either side. That’s the only way to understand what’s really going on.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:28:19 +0000

Hello “Unbaised Right”! You might be right….But Israel enjoys complete
coverage in almost all North-American, European newspapers and/or magazines! That cannot be said about “Middle Eastern” papers ! In regard to the “Real News Network”, it tries to report and investigate news about the Middle-East and the Palestinians which are often reported inaccurately if reported at all by the overwhelming majority of media outlets here in North
America to say the least ! Bye

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:42:20 +0000

Not one mention of the BBC !?

By: bert

bert — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:29:08 +0000

So, I guess you are defining censorship as an entity deciding, based on their own beliefs, what should/should not be published. But it seems you go further and have decided that it is censorship if a company decides what should be published but if an individual or a group of individuals makes that decision, it’s not censorship? At what point does the group become an “entity” that, if it decides what to publish, it is censoring? I think you need to stick with the common concern of censorship by a government. If a private entity, be it a company or an individual, makes publication decisions, anyone can choose whether or not to read the publication. I really don’t understand your reasoning.

By: David

David — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:56:20 +0000

Actually, the Independent in the UK is a complete anachronism. When it was set up, it was independent from the media corporations and proprietors who owned the rest of the British national newspapers- mainly Robert Maxwell, Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black.

Well, one out of three’s still in business.

However, there are rumours that the paper will soon be taken over by Alexander Lebedev, who owns the London evening standard and was a KGB agent.

Of course, that does not mean it won’t be objective. However, their current editor was the mouthpiece for the UK government during his time at the Observer during the buildup to the Iraq war. Technically it wasn’t biased, it simply presented the government stance uncritically, mostly because their political editor’s only inside source was, errm, the government spin doctor.

Why not just get all your news from Reuters, AP and AFP? That’s where all the news sites get theirs.

By: d bene tleilax

d bene tleilax — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:38:32 +0000

I am glad to see a post like this, because I have been frustrated with the terrible mainstream media for ages. I always get my news from multiple alternative outlets, and it’s good to present more options to anyone who might be interested in learning what’s outside of our little American media box.

I definitely agree that for anyone who cares to know the real story behind anything, receiving reports from a variety of sources on all sides of the political spectrum is absolutely critical. So if these are indeed left-leaning and one has a right-leaning inclination, these should still be valuable for getting another perspective on whatever issues it is that one cares about.

If people are truly interested in the reality of something, then I am sure they would welcome all information they could get about that issue, in order to increase knowledge about it. That is what taking an objective approach is really about. I am highly skeptical of people who are consistently fed by only one avenue of information, because it greatly increases the likelihood that they are missing out on important data that could be quite relevant.

But then again people often purposefully avoid that very same data because they are reluctant to change their opinions or can’t handle the social consequences of such changes (i.e. having to admit you no longer like Obama when surrounded by Obama-loving friends).

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:38:25 +0000

Thank you for the compilation. Ignoring left/right argumentatives, I guess I need to know how the judgment of “independent” came about. Have you researched either their funding sources, or their editorial board makeup and bonafides, or should I attempt that myself. I heartily agree with you on the need for journalistic independence, but I am unfortunately old enough to be cynical about the titles of organizations and/or their mission statements. Up to now, I have just been reconciled to combing the various outlets in the sometimes justified hope of at least getting competing points of view.

By: Ryan Dube

Ryan Dube — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:50:32 +0000

crljones – you’re confusing the term “independent” with “biased.” Independent means that no corporate entity or private funding will direct which stories are covered or how they are covered – only the editorial staff will based on their own principles.

The fact that you dislike their left-leaning advocacy doesn’t make the post topic “facile.”