I don’t know if I should change the title to ‘does unbiased media exist?’
I just found out a Washington Post cartoonist quit after a Bezos satire she draw was rejected.
I was until today a reader of said newspaper, but after this kind of censorship I don’t know if I should keep reading it.
Note that I’m not looking for media sources that fabricate outrage either for the left or for the right or news sources whose business model is to editorialize titles to work people up. I’m just looking for unbiased media sources.
Maybe this was a stupid question: everyone is biased, or am I wrong?
You must log in or register to comment.
I prefer sources with obvious bias since it makes it easier to account for. Sources that pretend to be unbias are far more insidious.
I like the way the Behind the Bastards podcaster explains it. Each journalistic outlet had strengths to certain things and part of learning to consume journalism is knowing what each sources’ strengths or weaknesses are. Or learning to follow specific journalists across platforms.
And some just play to the echo chambering of political parties saying exactly what their reader base wants to hear. It’s good to learn what those are as well.
None. All are biased. The best way is to read multiple news sources being aware of what their biases are.
I wouldn’t just say “all are biased”.
Some just outright make things up. (looking at you, Fox News entertainment)
‘the chart’ is a good starting point.
note: linking to harvard because they have a static snapshot that is viewable without scripting enabled. just click it to go to the source at ad fontes.
i tend to stick with local public radio. it’s always on when i’m in the car. when i see a post or headline that i want to read more about, i feed it to the duck and look for relevant content at places like reuters, ap, npr, or the nearest major papers (milwaukee, madison) that aren’t in chicago (too much ‘chicagoland’ in them, and i avoid the city).
Most news organizations either are paid by the government or by some corporate stockholders (usually the rich).
It’s difficult to find unbiased news sources. There are some smaller ones, which are paid by private donations, but they often have inferior quality due to … appealing mostly to 18-y/o women who want “to make a change” and stuff (my opinion)
long story short, finding factual news sources is extremely difficult and i’ve basically given up on it. i can study physics to understand what is plausible and what is not, but i have no way to decide whether reporting on far-away events is biased or how much.
I like Verity (formerly Improve The News) which collates the facts of a news story from multiple sources, then gives you multiple spins on it.
Every source has a bias, sometimes what is NOT reported is a stronger signal then what is reported.
I pull news from multiple biased sources and stitch together my own view.
The Economist (USA), BBC (UK), Reuters(UK), Al Jazerra (QAT) , CGTN (china), CNA (SGP) - Gives quite the picture of events, from multiple perspectives!
Remember the Left-Right spectrum is only a very shallow view of the world, its multidimensional politics out there with many different incentives!
Have a check of !news_summary@lemmy.dbzer0.com ive got generated ai summaries of some of those sources. If u got an rss feed u would reccommend i add lmk.
Yeah, I’m subscribed. I like the summaries! It’s a good idea.
I’m not sure if its possible, but can you torture your model to try to generate a one sentence summary as well, kinda like - make a factual headline for this article that is short and succinct!
https://www.economist.com/rss - They do enjoy their paywalls, might need to link to one of the ladders as well, like archive.is
Thats essentially whats gonna go into the daily brief.
Paywalls shouldnt be too much of an issue its already working for nytimes.
This project looks cool, but just a friendly reminder that LLMs can be biased too, so take that into consideration.
In general, any summary is a form of bias - you decide what is important and what can be left out. Relying on summarizes leaves you vulnerable to the summarizer’s own bias - in this case an LLM, which is no innocent of biases.
In my onion, agreeing with Jet here, reading different sources from different countries yourself is probably the best.
Might take more time, but if it’s a story you’re interested in and not something you do because you have to then it’s different.
It’s all biased but since I haven’t seen it mentioned I like tangle. It comes as an email
Bias is less concerning to me than accuracy. Left/right? I don’t really care as long as the reporting is accurate.
My local newspaper.
I usually check Al Jazeera mainly for the war in Ukraine, Palestine, and Middle East in general.
No media is unbiased but they put effort in being objective.
None, there is no unbiased news source in existance.
That being said, I mainly use the government’s TV station’s (SVT) news feed and one of our major daily news papers (DN) feed to get a general idea of what is going on, they tend to be decently accurate.
Everyone’s biased imo. I like propublica’s biases.
I usually prefer AP, Reuters, and PBS. I’m sure there is still some bias somewhere, but at least they strive to report just news straight up without injecting opinion.
Firsthand experience is beyond words and super deep.
Convert to words. Consume words. Map words to your own experience.
It’s basically anime at that point.
