A Quest for Truth: A list of the top 8 unbiased news sources
I've been visiting the BBC and CNN online for quite some time now, and have found them to have interesting and informative articles. However, I was curious about other unbiased news sources, and what they might be. So, I did some research. I found this article on debate.org, and it looks like a great idea! I will begin visiting these news sources, too!
For anyone interested in things like politics, society, religion, etc., it is often difficult to accept that the information we are receiving might be coming from biased sources. We all like to
"Every man is entitled to his own opinion... but not his own facts!"
hold faith in the idea that the journalists we look to for insight about the world around us are presenting nothing more than neutral, hard-hitting facts. Unfortunately, however, that is too rarely the case. After all, we are only human, and as much as we are inclined to look at the media as some great, independent, self-fulfilling entity, the fact of the matter is that it is people who keep this machine runningreal, living, breathing human beings with individual experiences, brain chemistries, educations, ideas and opinions. Try as one might, it is next to impossible to deliver anything of value that is devoid of your own figurative fingerprint. It is, arguably, our emotion, our experience, and our education that form every singular idea we have. That is how we prioritize what is important and what is not. It is how we decide which facts are important enough to include, which moments are important enough to capture on film, and which stories are essential enough to put on the front page. Regardless of what one might think about the media, it all comes down to individual human decision.
Moreover, we, as humans, seem to naturally default to those areas that we find comfort inplaces of camaraderie, communion, self-affirmation and self-improvement. We try, as often as possible, to avoid situations that are harmful to our success, happiness and overall well-being. As a result, we tend to neglect those people and ideas that might seem threatening. Its our fight or flight instinct. If youre gay, chances are you arent going to actively seek out the company of violent homophones. If youre a person of color (any color, that is), you most likely wont accept an open dinner invitation from a group of white supremacists. Similarly, rarely do we ever seek out stories and viewpoints that run contrary to our own. I, like anyone, am guilty as charged. As a self-professed non-partisan liberal, my default news source (and predictably so) is NPR, along with a handful of other blogs on feminism and human rights. I wouldnt be caught dead reading Fox News, and Im sure none of my conservative friends would ever even consider touching the Huffington Post.
What Im saying here isnt really a secret. Almost all of us educated, free-thinking, political whistleblowers realize that were selling ourselves short. So how do we fix it? I have scoured the Internet for recommendations on unbiased, trustworthy news sources. While the majority of respondents echo the same sentiments as above (Theres no such thing as an unbiased news source!), a few notable contenders have proved themselves somewhat worthy. What follows is a concise list of these nonpartisan think tanks. Some I visit regularly, others simply come at the recommendation of others. As always, feel free to criticize any of these choices, and make your own suggestions in the forum or in the comments below.
Wikinews
Wikinews is perhaps one of the best places to find original and unbiased news stories. Like Wikipedia, it allows for collaboration with and feedback from the general public, ensuring that differing viewpoints are heard, and that lies and partisanship are actively called out.AlterNet
AlterNet is one of my favorite online news sources. Their mission describes them as award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources. Their goal is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more.The Real News
The Real News is another one of my favorites. The header of their website proclaims, NO GOVERNMENT, CORPORATE OR ADVERTISING $$$, which stands as a marker of self-proclaimed nonpartisanship, political and otherwise. They report on news from all around the world, offering stories ignored by most other major outlets.Reuters
Reuters , an international news agency stationed in London, is so dedicated to journalistic objectivity that they sometimes receive criticism for it. After the September 11 attacks, they were accused of insensitivity because of their reluctance to use the word terrorist except when in quotes.The Independent
The Independent is a U.K. newspaper that reports on news from around the world. While its status as independent often garners accusations of liberalism, the paper does not endorse any political party and offers a wide range of views on different topics.PBS, BBC and CSPAN
PBS , BBC and CSPAN are also major notable outlets. When compared to others, such as Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, they offer unprecedented objectivity
Thanks for coming by! I thought that you may enjoy the list, as well!
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
Please keep snarky comments to a minimum!
I watched George Carlin last night-- an old clip, and boy, did he put it well! Besides being funny, he hit the nail on the head:
Off the top of my head I was thinking of folks like the Amish but aftera quick google around I also ran across the "Peace Makers, Institute for Christian Conciliation", that operate in Texas and have done so for decades.
I think that all have a bit of bias, but I do read Reuters as they seem to be fair.
All sources are biased. It's an inevitable part of the editing process. The bias can be conscious or unconscious, but it exists in a myriad of ways. Which facts in a story are emphasized and which are buried or omitted altogether? Which adjectives are used? What experts are cited and how are they identified? Pretty much any new item can be reported in multiple ways while remaining factually correct. Bias in reporting is human nature.
Most people simply identify a new source as "unbiased" if it conforms to their own biases. For example the author of this story cites alternet as unbiased even though its an extremely partisan left wing blog. The author is no doubt well left of center, so liberally biased sources appear unbiased.
Bernard Goldberg wrote an excellent book "Bias" demonstrating how these conscious and unconscious acts of bias played out at CBS news over his 30 year career. It would be much better for everyone involved if news sources dropped the pretense of objectivity and openly announced their editorial slant.
Dowser-Carlin was a modern day philosopher.
The youngin's turned me on to a news site called "Vice News" dot com. The jury is still out on it, IMO, but the documentaries connected to the site were interesting to say the least. From the site's "About":
My first experience with the site was a documentary about cancer research using genetic reprogramming of common viruses to attack cancer cells. Measles & HIV for example.
Thank all of you for your responses! As usual, you have made me think things through, again!
Thank you!
Yeah, I'm looking for fair-- as much as possible.
Yeah, I'm looking for fair-- as much as possible.
Hi Dowser!
After many, many years online, I've concluded that there is no one unbiased source where you can get all news. So the way I approach it now is to quickly skim headlines online from several sources I'm familiar with. Some have left or right bias, but since I am aware of what their bias is I take that into account. Not perfect, but its a fairly good approach. (I'm a fast reader, so I can skim a lot of headlines fast).
Actually you have to chose those sources wisely. Because if you look at several different news outlets, in many cases the news may still originate from the same source-- AP! (Of course they spin it by choosing which stories to carry-- often they will totally omit an important AP story).
Actually what I mainly do now is look at Yahoo News. It what used to be called an "aggregator site"-- they have stories from several sources. Sometimes even three stories from different sites on the same story. So I find I get, overall, a pretty fair representation of the news that's relatively unbiased when I got to Yahoo news. (Some if I see a story on Yahoo that's really controversial, I google to see how some other sites handle it-- often the same story will have different parts left out on CBS, NBC and ABC as well as other sites.
That sounds good, Krish! Thanks!!!
Alternet unbiased ? Get real !
What he said!
I think it keeps them warm at night. Personally I think there are better options.....
I found Reuters to be about as good as any of them. Back when I was seeding, I found their reporting to be about as factual as anything out there. Proof in the pudding was that I rarely if ever was asked to defend the source... Left or Right.
Of course it also depends on the topic. Mostly I would seed things related to the goings on Ukraine, Russia, or the China Seas, or science. Leaving the red-meat political crap to those that want to wallow in it saves bandwidth.
Best thing you can do if you have a story you want to seed, get it from a good source, then go out and see what the far left and right crap news outlets are saying on the topic. That way if there are deviations, you can research details independently, and be ready for the Seagull-posters if they even arrive at all. Again....saves bandwidth.
When I was editor of my university's newspaper in the 1950s, we considered The Christian Science Monitor to be our model for an excellent medium, extremely well designed and a prize-winner for lack of bias, but since then is has leaned pretty far left.
Although Dowser has listed the BBC as being an unbiased source, maybe it is, but not at all when it comes to Israel. In fact it has won the Honest Reporting prize a number of years for being the most biased news source in the world in reporting anything concerning Israel. As well, I used to respect the NYT, but no more.
I definitely agree about the NYTimes. For decades it was "the newspaper of record"-- authoritative, unbiased. That is no longer the case. (They still occasionally come up with some excellent articles-- but on non-controversial topics. (gardening, cooking, theatre, travel, etc). But concerning anything political, they are pretty terrible.
Both the BBC and The Christian Science monitor also used to be excellent & objective, but they no longer are. (both often have very good articles, but you have to keep an eye out for extreme biases which often creep in).
One thing the BBC does do-- it gives a lot of coverage to small countries that are not well covered (or even covered at all) in most western media.
Alternet is pretty far left-- but again sometimes they have some good articles.
Iused to keep trying to find a good unbiased source. Now I have a different approach-- I look at many sources. that I am familiar with. I often get the same story with a different spin on different sites-- since I know their bias I can generally see through it-- and extract the real jist of the story!l
I guess everyone has a viewpoint, don't they. I would expect the British to be very "look at what the natives are doing now" about the Israelis. It is a shame that they can't seem to cut that bias from the BBC. I feel they sometimes treat us that way, too.
I've never read it, Petey-- so, please, tell me why you feel it to be biased.
Thanks!
Hillary is baldly playing the gender card here . She is doing it because it will help her obtain more female voters . Is she concerned with selecting the most capable cabinet members ? Hell no .
That raises an interesting question - we could do an article on who the NT members would like to see chosen as cabinet members depending on who is elected POTUS.
I could get JohnR really pissed if I chose John Bolton as Secretary of State, Allan Dershowitz as Vice-Pres, Colin Powell back as Chief of the Armed forces and Pamela Geller as Homeland Security and defender of Constitutional rights such as Free Speech.
I could get JohnR really pissed if I chose John Bolton as Secretary of State, Allan Dershowitz as Vice-Pres, Colin Powell back as Chief of the Armed forces and Pamela Geller as Homeland Security and defender of Constitutional rights such as Free Speech.
Quite a selection! (Actually Colin Powell is more centrist than the rest of 'em)
Smart idea, looking at the same thing from all sides!
Thanks!
Yes, they are a good news source! Thanks!
I see someone brought back an article that is over a year old.
I think I am going to do this too, there must be something back there worth bringing back up over and over.
As for the topic, AlterNet and the Real News are definitely liberal-left websites. Both of them could be fairly accurately described as far left actually. I think that calls the validity of the article into some question.
Krish resurrected it, Why is a valid question....
The answer to that could be to make sure we are reminded to look through the bias - because it is inevitable that it will be there to twist our minds into someone else's viewpoint.
Krish resurrected it, Why is a valid question....
Well-- here's the short answer:
I've been doing it for years. (Bringing old articles to peoples' attention). On that "other site" some people used to get totally freaked out by it. More than one launched the ultimate weapon-- dreaded Sometimes the "personal attack"! (even when it wasn't a case of something political they disagreed with). I don't know why it upsets a few people so much...???
Anyway the reason I do it is simple. I've noticed that on many subjects, most people online have no idea WTF they're talking about. Part of the reason is that their entire knowledge of some subjects is based on their coming across a single article about it, then seeding it. They have no idea of the background of the story, surrounding relevant events, and/or the history, which is often crucial in understanding it.
So, if I know of a really good seed from the past that puts the topic into perspective, and/or gives a lot more relevant facts, I comment on it-- in order to bring it to the front page...so people notice it.
(More and more I do that instead of posting links. Most people don't click on links. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that since so many people have "KIA Syndrome" (they think they "Know It All") they feel they can't learn anything new--so why bother to click on any posted links?
(Of course another possibility is that since most people who spend a lot of time online are only doing so to push their political agenda, they want to avoid the possibility of any new facts that might shake their faith in their political biases. For these folks their politial belief system is every bit as important [and as totally arbitrary] as a religious fundamentalist's rigid religious beliefs).
So-- that's the short answer. So know y'all know why. (When I have some time I'll go into it in a bit more depth :^) But now I'm off the make the biscuits..err.. I mean the toast
Dear Frirnd Dowser: You pose a mot interesting question.
I see news (and entertainment posing as news) sources on a continuum.
Some are more objective than others.
Over time, as news became more about ratings, and journalists more about advancing their careers than reporting stories quality and objectivity have become casualties of the ratings and career wars.
BBC is known for its anti-Israel bias. Not bad on other matters.
PBS tries its best to be objective. Gwen Ifil did her level best to be fair. She fell down on religious objectivity. Shields and Brooks come off as level headed. Look at their positions exposed after "objective": analysis and there is no daylight between them and other right or left wingers.
Fox and MSNBC are polar extremes of entertainment, not news.
On any given day, look how many electronic and print media outlets are either exclusively or at least in part daily devoted to coverage of financial markets and their securities. Now ask how many do the same coverage of the labor markets? How many Americans hold significant positions in stocks bond s mutual funds etc? How many have or need middle class employment with livable salaries, wages, benefits and a full time future? See the coverage trend and its reflection of implications for us?
In all cases, its the stories they do not cover which are the ones we most need to hear about so we can make up our own minds. Not be told what to think. Not be pandered to to move merchandise and boost ratings.
Journalist are individuals. They are as flawed and graced as any of the rest of us. Not more or less so. Just more visible. Media organizations are collections of individuals.
"Caveat Emptor". Let us information buyers beware.
Peace, Truth, and Abundant Blessings Now and Going Forward.
Enoch.
Thanks, dear Enoch! This is an older article, but your words of wisdom are timeless!
BBC is known for its anti-Israel bias. Not bad on other matters.
I agree. There's a read disconnect in that regard. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation is really anti-Israel, they really distort the facts. Occasionally even bordering on anti-Semitism). But better on just about anything else. (Actually one of their strongest points is coverage of news from "less important" countries-- good if you want to keep up with the latest political development in Uruguay or some fairly obscure African nation. Or even all the information about the latest sinking of iver-crowded ferry boats in Egypt, India, or China. (That's only partly sarcasm-- if you want to know what's happening outside of better known countries, they really good).
And "Al Jazeera on The Thames" (AKA Reuters) also has a significant anti-Israel bias-- although usually more subtle than BBC. And they also cover more of a variety of topics than most news organizations.
So if you want fair coverage on Israel and the rabs, you;ll have to look elsewhere-- like The Guardian. (Oh wait...). Even The Independent.
For good coverage of israeli news, you can also go to English langauge israeli papers. Good sources-- but again, you can read between the lines once you ralize each one's bias: jerusalem Post has a right-wing bias. Ynet is moderate, just slightly left of center IMO. And of course Ha'Aretz is the Israeli mouthpiece for Palestinian terrorrists.
I used to read the English versions of some Arab papers, there are a few good ones.
Online: RT ("Russia Today") pretends to be objective, but basically espouses Putin's views. Similarly, "Press TV" is the mouthpiece for the official Iranian party line. The so-called Veterans Today is a anti-American and anti-Israel hate site. I like Sl Arabiya-- it has good coverage, especially of the Middle east,But beware-- its a Saudi site! (So a lort of its coverage is anti-Iran).
Huffpo actually has good coverage on a lot of topics, and some of its really informative. But again, you have to "read between the lines" and make a conscious effort to filter through their blatant leftist bias.
I think MSNBC is actually useful on occasion-- somewhat better than Fox. (Of course you have to filter out their leftist bias).
Occasionally Public TV as well as npr has some great stuff you won't see elsewhere.
Anyway-- those are my extremely biased opinions!
For news and especially analysis, one of my favourite sites is Michael Totten's. Usually some excellent in depth insights into situations. Unlike the cliches of most news in the MSM, he really has an in depth understanding of whats going on somewhere-- check it out, its HERE
I will post links to a few excellent articles Totten wrote that give unique perspective. Here's one about the situation on the Israel Lebanon border (well, what it was like in 2005, anyway-- but still some great insights):
As promised yesterday, here are my photos of the Lebanese-Israeli border —- a renewed hot zone in the Arab-Isaeli conflict. If you want more complete descriptions of what’s going on in this region and what some of these pictures are all about, read yesterday’s article No Peace Without Syria .
All photos shown below were taken inside the Hezbollah-controlled zone in South Lebanon.
(Link)
.
Another excellent Totten piece from the same period-- not the sort of thing you'd find in most of the MSM:
October 07, 2005
Meeting Hezbollah
I met with Hezbollah in person today.
The goons picked me up at my hotel. They stuffed me in the back of the car, blindfolded me, drove me around in circles, then took me (I think) into the mountains to a “safe house” to talk to the sheik.
Actually, that's not what happened at all...
(Read it all)
If anyone is looking for a good source of articles re: the Middle east that you won't find elsewhere, I would highly recommend looking at his current articles for something interesting to seed on NT
I was able to open the 1st Totten link you posted but not this one. However, I have been to Metullah, saw the ice skating arena Canada donated to Israel and watched people inside skating. As well I spent some time on a kibbutz near the Lebanon border and had the experience most members of NT have never had, having to hide in a bomb shelter because of bombs floated over Israel by Hezbollah.
Wow-- interesting experiences! I have been in Israel several times and flew from there to Egypt once (going through customs in Israel after a direct flight from Egypt was interesting, of course inspectors were suspicious of everyone. ).I visited Safad and the Sea of Galilee, but never got that far north.
Also, I've never been there during war time or periods of heightened tensions.
BTW I had originally planned to go back to Israel from Cairo by bus-- at that time the borders of Gaza were open (and Gaza was relatively prosperous and peaceful as it was still under Israeli occupation)
Which one couldn't you open-- the one about Hezb'Allah or the one about the border? Let me know and Ill check it.
The Hezbollah one.
I have been through Israel from the farthest point north to the farthest point south. I have visited Efrat which is the settlement in the West Bank where I met Rabbi Riskin, stood on the Golan overlooking the Sea of Gallilee (which enables one to see why it was of strategic necessity to occupy it), climbed Masada and tried to swim in the Dead Sea (impossible to go underwater unless you are a dill-pickle camouflaged submarine), from Eilat walked into Egypt and travelled in Jordan to see Petra, and many many things in between on more than one trip.
Sounds like you really experienced a real variety of what Israel has to offer. I never visited the West Bank-- I wanted to but at that time is was considered to dangerous.
I made several trips, but spent a lot of time on a kibbutz-- well, two different ones at different times. Also, on the last trip spent it all in Tel Aviv (except for a trip to Egypt) -- I went to help an American friend who was doing a fashion shoot with top Israeli models-- meet a lot of them plus some top people in Israeli fashion. (Also met a vice president of Gottex-- my friend sat down with him in Gottex HQs as rack after rack of clothes were wheeled in-- my friend chose the ones to be used in fashion shoot). I had no interest in fashion, just went because my friend said it would be interesting-- it was!
The first trip was long ago -- at that time Golan was still controlled by Syria, the West bank was still occupied by Jordan, Gaza was still occupied by Egyot. In Jerusalem some streets ended in a high wall-- that separated the israel part from the part occupied by Jordan! So I never saw the Western Wall, Temple Mount, or the Mosques on top during that trip-- or even the Old walled city. It was still under Jordanian occupation. I saw The famous Mandlebaum Gate-- the equivalent of Checkpoint Charlie when Berlin was divided. Beersheva was still a fairly small town-- there wasn't a single skyscraper.
Some friends were trying to decide if we were going to visit Egypt or Petra-- we decided on Egypt so I never went to Jordan. (If there's ever real peace in Egypt which may not happen in anytime in the near future, I would highly recommend the boat ride along the Nile which stops at many ruins, (scroll down that page for a breif view of Luxor) and probably the singular most interesting place in Egypt-- & Luxor is amazing..
Yes, Luxor looks fantastic. I only walked to Taba from Eilat. Petra in Jordan is also worth seeing if you ever get back there. I did spend time in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Netanya as well. Put a note between the stones of the Western Wall, saw Yad Vashem in Tel Aviv (there are many stones piled around the tree planted in the Avenue of the Righteous for Oskar Schindler).Oh, I also was up on the Temple Mount, entered the Dome of the Rock and put my hand on the rock (it is quite big) but fortunately that didn't automatically convert me to Islam.
The Hezbollah one.
I just tried it and can open it. Perhaps it is censored in some countries.
It is Michael Totten's personal web site and I can't open a lot of personal sites.
I realize that this is of little help to anyone, but the Dow Jones newsfeed on my work computer does something that perhaps no news organization does any longer - they just give you the news, as it hits.
They're news reports, just giving the information on what is going on, without the "why". It's just like news used to be. You read the story, and then decide.
I realize that this is of little help to anyone, but the Dow Jones newsfeed on my work computer does something that perhaps no news organization does any longer - they just give you the news, as it hits.
They're news reports, just giving the information on what is going on, without the "why". It's just like news used to be. You read the story, and then decide.
I nominate Fox News, NewsMax, Daily Caller, One News Now, Christian Post, Christian Examiner, One America News Network, Investors Business Daily as great unbiased news sources.
I nominate Fox News, NewsMax, Daily Caller, One News Now, Christian Post, Christian Examiner, One America News Network, Investors Business Daily as great unbiased news sources.
LOL-- its wonderful to see you haven't lost your marvelous sense of humour!
P.S: I'm not familiar with all of them, but if youre looking for the alt-right, that's a pretty good collection.
One exception-- IBD's editorial pages are about as far right as anything out there, but if memory serves ,their actual news reporting is often good (?) And IMO their analysis of stocks is really off base-- overly obsessed with technical analysis and short on analysis of fundamentals. (In most cases that means their advice would having you buying high and selling low-- all the more so in the current unusual market environent). If you want a decent financial paper, why not stick with the tried and true-- WSJ? ) Also right wing editorials, but if you don't like that you can skip them).
None of the above are alt right. That's Breitbart. What I listed are good news sites with conservative or Christian or both editorial pages. I like both IBD and WSJ. I'm a buy and hold person who uses dollar cost averaging for regular investing and spare cash on dips. My biggest investments were made in 1999-2002 and 2008-2009.
One more oldie from Totten-- couldn't resist. This is one of the best pieces of reporting about an indigenus ethnic group I've seen. The Yezidis are actually Kurds (although they sometimes pretend they are not). Kurds-- bur in their own whey!
A peaceful people in parts of Iraq and vicinity. They have been horrendously persecuted by Moslem gov'ts who erroneously think they are "devil worshiipers". ISis has captured many of their little girls using them for mass rape. They were the ones that ISIS went after resulting in their taking refuge on Mt Sinjar.. eventually Kurdish fighters managed to rescue many of them with, eventually, some assistance from western air power.).
Excellent article:
The Beginning of the Universe
LALISH, IRAQ – In Northern Iraq there is a place called Lalish where the Yezidis say the universe was born. I drove south from Dohok on snowy roads through an empty land, seemingly to the ends of the earth, and found it nestled among cold hills.
I went there because the President of Dohok University told me to go. “I am a Muslim,” he said. “But I love the Yezidis. Theirs is the original religion of the Kurds. Only through the Yezidis can I speak to God in my own language.”
Yezidis are ancient fire-worshippers. They heavily influenced Zoroastrianism, and in turn have been heavily influenced by Sufi Islam. The temple at Lalish is their “Mecca.” Hundreds of thousands of remaining Yezidis – those Kurds who refused to submit to Islam – make pilgrimages there at least once in their lifetimes from all over the Middle East and Europe.
“They worship Satan,” my Kurdish-speaking driver said to me through my translator Birzo before we got out of the car. It sounded like ignorant bullshit to me, and not only because Saddam Hussein also said so. I would have to ask the Yezidis about that.
(cont'd)
One more oldie from Totten-- couldn't resist. This is one of the best pieces of reporting about an indigenous people I've seen. The Yezidis are actually Kurds (although they sometimes pretend they are not). Kurds-- bur in their own whey!
A peaceful people in parts of Iraq and vicinity. They have been horrendously persecuted by Moslem gov'ts who erroneously think they are "devil worshiipers". ISis has captured many of their little girls using them for mass rape. They were the ones that ISIS went after resulting in their taking refuge on Mt Sinjar.. eventually Kurdish fighters managed to rescue many of them with, eventually, some assistance from western air power.).
Excellent article:
The Beginning of the Universe
LALISH, IRAQ – In Northern Iraq there is a place called Lalish where the Yezidis say the universe was born. I drove south from Dohok on snowy roads through an empty land, seemingly to the ends of the earth, and found it nestled among cold hills.
I went there because the President of Dohok University told me to go. “I am a Muslim,” he said. “But I love the Yezidis. Theirs is the original religion of the Kurds. Only through the Yezidis can I speak to God in my own language.”
Yezidis are ancient fire-worshippers. They heavily influenced Zoroastrianism, and in turn have been heavily influenced by Sufi Islam. The temple at Lalish is their “Mecca.” Hundreds of thousands of remaining Yezidis – those Kurds who refused to submit to Islam – make pilgrimages there at least once in their lifetimes from all over the Middle East and Europe.
“They worship Satan,” my Kurdish-speaking driver said to me through my translator Birzo before we got out of the car. It sounded like ignorant bullshit to me, and not only because Saddam Hussein also said so. I would have to ask the Yezidis about that.
(cont'd)