3 ms·

No news source is truly objective. Your best option is to read various news sources with different biases, and keeping in mind how they lean.

scholia 9y ago
> No news source is truly objective. No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)
- oblib 9y ago
  That's not entirely true. One can be objective but it does take some self awareness that's not touted much these days.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    Well, I doubt any of us is perfect. I do my best to read the news & opinion responsibly: consider what evidence is given and do not give weight to hearsay with no proof, wait for each side to have its say before weighing evidence, and to make no rush to judge anyone. I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    It's a noble goal but, I think, doomed, because we're all inherently biased towards things that a) were written(1), b) in a language we understand, and c) were delivered to us somehow. What about all the things that happened that weren't written-about? What about all the things that didn't happen, for that matter? The tree over there in Bloomington IN at the corner of Whatever and Whatever, is still there -- find out more, tonight at 11! Or what about the things that were written-about, just not in your own language? Putin has an 83% approval rating back home, but the US media seem to want me to think he's the next Hitler. If I could read Russian better, I could find out a lot more about it. What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things. (1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium." Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.
  - scholia 9y ago
    Even if you are truly self-aware, there is no view without a point of view. (And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

scholia 9y ago

> No news source is truly objective. No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)

oblib 9y ago
That's not entirely true. One can be objective but it does take some self awareness that's not touted much these days.
- Natsu 9y ago
  Well, I doubt any of us is perfect. I do my best to read the news & opinion responsibly: consider what evidence is given and do not give weight to hearsay with no proof, wait for each side to have its say before weighing evidence, and to make no rush to judge anyone. I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  It's a noble goal but, I think, doomed, because we're all inherently biased towards things that a) were written(1), b) in a language we understand, and c) were delivered to us somehow. What about all the things that happened that weren't written-about? What about all the things that didn't happen, for that matter? The tree over there in Bloomington IN at the corner of Whatever and Whatever, is still there -- find out more, tonight at 11! Or what about the things that were written-about, just not in your own language? Putin has an 83% approval rating back home, but the US media seem to want me to think he's the next Hitler. If I could read Russian better, I could find out a lot more about it. What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things. (1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium." Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.
- scholia 9y ago
  Even if you are truly self-aware, there is no view without a point of view. (And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow