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 use bbc and routers
I get all my news through my router. (Also Reuters is pretty good.)
Everyone’s biased imo. I like propublica’s biases.
NPR isn’t too bad.
Ground News and NYT here
Associated Press and Reuters.
note that in addition to staff reporting, the ap is also reliant on member publications–which means that those biases end up on ‘the wire’, too.
Looking at stuff from out of country can help.
CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK both cover significant US news and aren’t going to be as overtly biased as for-profit US news sources.
I hadn’t heard of CBC. I consume a lot of BBC content. Also maybe check out ABC (Australia). These public broadcasters produce some great journalism IMO.
The Conservative Party of Canada wants to shutdown the CBC, so it’s gotta be good.
I’ve had a consistently unbiased experience with Tangle: https://www.readtangle.com/about/
I liked reading their stuff then they came out pissing and moaning about Luigi and it kinda turned me off
Bias exists in all media, we must simply consume media critically with the relevant biases in mind
If i may ask - what does “consume media critically” mean?
How is the process description for that? I’m genuinely interested. I see the word “critical thinking” thrown around a lot but it was never explained to me even in the slightest bit. What does it entail?
When you read with an awareness of the source and the larger context in which it was written, and you’re trying to actively decide what to believe based on what can be substantiated, that is at least a part of reading critically.
It’s not taught well in schools, and most people nowadays are simply reading headlines and reacting based on their gut feeling. Such people are easily swayed for the worse, but difficult to help.
thank you, that actually makes sense to me
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.
You’re right, everyone is biased. It’s part of human nature. The bezt you can do about it is to be aware of biases, how they work, how to recognize them, and how to avoid them. Then practice those avoidance techniques.
It is not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than not helping the situation
Everyone is biased, some less so. Use something like media bias checker or Ground News and read what they say the bias is and why.
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.
Bias is less concerning to me than accuracy. Left/right? I don’t really care as long as the reporting is accurate.
‘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).
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.
