re: I need a website with unbiased news coverage.

quote:

---

Natural News
Free and Equal
Collective Evolution
International Human Press
Truth Theory

---

You realize all of these news sources are also owned by the global conglomerate. You'd only be a naive fool to believe that they aren't.

The kind of sites ST reads are the kind that simply go against the mainstream narrative, manufacture stories based on that idea and call it news.

Conspiracy theories and manufactured questions from nothing isnt news.

"Why Walmart and Costco shrimp prices are so low - and why you should never buy from them again."

"YOU are the secret weapon of food marketing! - Find out how GMO, fluoride, heavy metal toxins and vaccines make you stupid and vulnerable to Big Food marketing tactics"

Enjoy your Aspergers, ST, seriously.

Search naked news. It's the most unbiased; especially since you won't even be paying attention to what the anchors are saying.

quote:

---

Hell, it appears that site is almost entirely driven by the premise that GMOs are dangerous, a claim refuted by literally every legitimate public and private scientific research conducted on them.

The sites very existence thus proves my point. It creates stories based on debunked ideas.

---

Not to mention its bullshite studies which have been thoroughly refuted for...oh, a decade or so.

"One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize in butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations against Bt maize; however by 2001 several follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields." and had "brought that particular question to a close."[72] After that event, "some scientists were dismayed that a single paper with preliminary data gave so much ammunition to anti-GMO activists and caused an expensive diversion of resources to calm the scare."[72] This has led such scientists to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent flawed conclusions from again causing public outcry and regulatory action.[72] A 2013 Scientific American article noted that there are a "tiny minority" of biologists who have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.[73]"

And they're still fricking talking about the goddamn butterflies.

quote:

---

I need a website with unbiased news coverage.quote:BBC I didn't know TBird has his own news site.

---

Yea it has a Yellow Sticker on the laptop he uses to read it.

quote:

---

What do I win?

---

Well one, you're disqualified for not playing by the rules, I said news articles on the main page, which means I was referring to the ones bolded on the main page, not in the archive.

But it doesn't matter.

What about the links you provided coincide with what you said?

For instance, the Wal-Mart shrimp article talks about slave labor, which is why the cost of the shrimp are so low.

It's using a report from a legitimate agency to share the news that trafficking working and slave labor in Thailand are used to keep costs down.

What is manufactured and phony about that news?

quote:

---

Not to mention its bullshite studies which have been thoroughly refuted for...oh, a decade or so.

"One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize in butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations against Bt maize; however by 2001 several follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields." and had "brought that particular question to a close."[72] After that event, "some scientists were dismayed that a single paper with preliminary data gave so much ammunition to anti-GMO activists and caused an expensive diversion of resources to calm the scare."[72] This has led such scientists to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent flawed conclusions from again causing public outcry and regulatory action.[72] A 2013 Scientific American article noted that there are a "tiny minority" of biologists who have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.[73]"

And they're still fricking talking about the goddamn butterflies.

---

Listen, I added that any of the sites I visit I view with skepticism.

I've read articles on Natural News and concluded them by saying "bullshite".

Imagine someone saying they're a Alfred Hitchcock fan, and then questioning them with every single moment of film he produced. Surely they will not be a fan of each and every second.

quote:

---

unbiased news coverage.

---

Doesn't exist.

Nothing wrong with listening to all of them in my opinion...in fact I would hope it would be encouraged.

Just have to be aware that they are turning a profit and are catering to whatever their base is.