So, for me, between the two news agencies, each with a slight but minimal bias, you can get a good sense of the “he said/she said” with less of the theatrics you might find elsewhere.

I usually trust Christian Science Monitor for more-or-less unbiased news.

I just read it and I feel as if I’m caught up to date with the past week (and weekend’s) events without feeling the need to finger point. To me, that’s good reporting.

Now for a slightly more exciting but still relatively unbiased report of the cease fire situation, see Al-Jazeera’s news report. They talk about the same events with the same key points, but with a *slightly* different focus, tending to favor the point of view of Russia and Syria but not extraordinarily so.

Both reports have their slants but nowhere near as dramatic as a lot of the other reporting I’ve seen.

So, for me, between the two news agencies, each with a slight but minimal bias, you can get a good sense of the “he said/she said” with less of the theatrics you might find elsewhere.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 − one =

Leave a Reply