Is there a non-biased news source left?

[Fau Teixeira]

nah that was wrong, and cnn should have fired the person that did that .. and they did. I don't really know what more you want out of a company than to identify someone doing something wrong and getting rid of them because of it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I guess tipping off Clinton to questions for debate only looks bad to us FOX worshiping conservative misogynistic racists?

That was done by one person who CNN got rid of when they found out. If CNN tolerated that and allowed her to remain employed then that would be evidence of bias.  The fact that CNN would not tolerate such behavior once discovered is proof of their commitment to fairness.

[Spider-Dan]

This is just another example of the double standard.

When Donna Brazile gave that information to Hillary's campaign, she lost her job.
When Brian Williams was found to have lied about being in a helicopter that was attacked, he was suspended and demoted.
When Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed to be in a war zone in the Falklands, he got a new contract with a huge raise.

So once again, we are left with a situation where conservatives are accusing the "liberal media" of things (rewarding journalists for lying) that they themselves are doing.  It's projection.

[Phishfan]

I think it is also fair to make sure we recall that Brazile provided questions to the Clinton campaign during the primary debate. Clinton was easily the less liberal between her and Sanders.

[masterfins]

i think that graphic is pretty ok as a rule of thumb .. cnn only looks liberal because the government is such a mess that even cnn looks liberal

Chris Cuomo of CNN is so far left he is as bad as just about anyone on Faux News, or MSNBC.  His bias is abundantly clear, just as the Fox & Friends people are.  So you really can't say CNN just "looks" liberal, they definitely are liberal.  They're not as bad as Fox is to the right, but they have steadily been moving to the left for the last decade.

[Tenshot13]

Chris Cuomo of CNN is so far left he is as bad as just about anyone on Faux News, or MSNBC.  His bias is abundantly clear, just as the Fox & Friends people are.  So you really can't say CNN just "looks" liberal, they definitely are liberal.  They're not as bad as Fox is to the right, but they have steadily been moving to the left for the last decade.

Agreed.  Did any of you watch the election night coverage on CNN?  Many of the people on there used the term "we" when referring to Clinton, many time.  People that are supposed to be unbiased.

I can easily see that Fox news has a hard bias to the right...propaganda might be a little harsh, but I won't fight that claim.  Why is it so hard for our liberal friends on this board to see that on the CNN side?  It's not as bad as Fox, but it's still there.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Chris Cuomo of CNN is so far left he is as bad as just about anyone on Faux News, or MSNBC.  His bias is abundantly clear, just as the Fox & Friends people are.  So you really can't say CNN just "looks" liberal, they definitely are liberal.  They're not as bad as Fox is to the right, but they have steadily been moving to the left for the last decade.

And he is paired with right winger and republican appoligist Alisyn Camerota.

[Sunstroke]

And he is paired with right winger and republican appoligist Alisyn Camerota.

Wait, you mean they intended to offer both sides of the story?

May God have mercy on us all...

[Spider-Dan]

Chris Cuomo of CNN is so far left he is as bad as just about anyone on Faux News, or MSNBC.  His bias is abundantly clear, just as the Fox & Friends people are.  So you really can't say CNN just "looks" liberal, they definitely are liberal.

Agreed.  Did any of you watch the election night coverage on CNN?  Many of the people on there used the term "we" when referring to Clinton, many time.  People that are supposed to be unbiased.

I can easily see that Fox news has a hard bias to the right...propaganda might be a little harsh, but I won't fight that claim.  Why is it so hard for our liberal friends on this board to see that on the CNN side?  It's not as bad as Fox, but it's still there.

You two are referring to the same network that has been cutting checks to Jeffrey Lord, Corey Lewandowski, and Kayleigh McEnany.  That is what makes those centrist media organizations centrist: for every Van Jones, there's an Ana Navarro.

In contrast, Fox News has... Juan Williams?  Fox doesn't even pretend to have a stable of liberal commentators.  Even Alan Colmes' routine of playing the Washington Generals to Hannity's Globetrotters was a little too strident to keep him on Fox.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

For a long time Bill Oriely was the face of Fox News.  Now it is Hannity.  Over at the liberal bastion that is MSNBC the face of the network is Joe Scarborough a former Republican member of the House with a 95% life time voting record by the Conservative Union. 

[CF DolFan]

For a long time Bill Oriely was the face of Fox News.  Now it is Hannity.  Over at the liberal bastion that is MSNBC the face of the network is Joe Scarborough a former Republican member of the House with a 95% life time voting record by the Conservative Union. 

And I voted 95% Democrat for many years. There is no way in hell he is voting even 50% Republican these days. He's not even a moderate by what I hear him say or try to defend. There is a reason he is getting paid by MSNBC and it isn't for the other side's point of view. I actually really dislike him becuase he is such a phony. I have much more repsect for the liberals who at least don't try to hide it.

[Spider-Dan]

If Joe Scarborough is your example of the liberal media then there isn't even any point in discussing what "unbiased" means.  If the goalposts have been moved so far to the right that lifelong Republicans are now leftist phonies, you're basically just saying, "Anything to the left of me is liberal media."

To elaborate: the Republican Party has become so radicalized that not only have they eliminated all self-identifying liberals at the national level, but even self-proclaimed moderates are few and far between.  So in that context, when moderate Republicans like Scarborough are considered "RINOs" and phonies, of course any centrist media organization would be considered shameless liberal apologists.

[CF DolFan]

If Joe Scarborough is your example of the liberal media then there isn't even any point in discussing what "unbiased" means.  If the goalposts have been moved so far to the right that lifelong Republicans are now leftist phonies, you're basically just saying, "Anything to the left of me is liberal media."

To elaborate: the Republican Party has become so radicalized that not only have they eliminated all self-identifying liberals at the national level, but even self-proclaimed moderates are few and far between.  So in that context, when moderate Republicans like Scarborough are considered "RINOs" and phonies, of course any centrist media organization would be considered shameless liberal apologists.

Joe Lieberman is more of a Republican than Scarborough.

[Spider-Dan]

Speaking of Joe Lieberman: the recent discussion of Lieberman as Trump's new FBI director (and the hearty Republican cheers that would follow such a move) is just another example of the kind of insanity that caused Republicans to cheer Comey's firing when Trump was claiming it was for being too mean to Hillary (?!).  This can be summed up in what has been dubbed "Cleek's law":

Today's conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily.

So essentially, whatever liberals want, conservatives are against that thing.  This is how Trump was able to take a litany of changing positions - many of which are at odds with traditional conservatism (free trade? Russia? POWs?) - with full-throated Republican support at every turn: liberals hate Trump, and so whatever he does is necessarily fine with conservatives, because he makes liberals mad in the process.  Present-day Republicans are simply anti-anti-Trump, no matter the pretzel logic required to reach that end.

So the GOP will happily cheer the FBI nomination of someone whom Democratic primary voters fired over the Iraq War.  The fact that Lieberman is still significantly to the left of the current GOP caucus (and that he's never been a law enforcement agent or federal prosecutor) doesn't matter; liberals don't like Lieberman, which means conservatives will support him.

In such an environment, it is easy for conservatives to identify unbiased media: does the media outlet in question report negative stories about Trump?  If so, it has a liberal bias.  Q.E.D.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Lieberman for FBI directer is a perfect fit for a Trump administration.  Given his extensive experience in the senate and lack of experience in law enforcement of all about the cabinet level positions in government this one is literally one of only a few he is not qualified for.

Trump himself lacks the skills and experience to be president.

His sec of ed opposes public schools

His head of the EPA opposes protecting the environment.

Etc. etc.

Lieberman is a perfect fit.