the only way to get a somewhat unbiased opinion is to consume multiple sources, cross-reference everything and ponder the results for hours. Which is impossibl

the only way to get a somewhat unbiased opinion is to consume multiple sources, cross-reference everything and ponder the results for hours. Which is impossible (takes too much time). And kinda lame, because its the professionals job to provide results. Obviously needs some kind of machine learning algorithm that just takes in all the news and spits out the average. "Independent media" does not work. Modern journalists dont make enough money, need to cater to external constraints like pageviews, need to put out way too many stories and are generally inept. Just looking at journalism on physics, you get major idiocies like "the LHC will create a black hole and not only will it create a black hole, the black hole will eat the world and everyone dies". Physics is generally not a hot button topic that people outrage about. Yet they screw even that up. Something really simple where you just have to listen to your interviewee and not apply hyperbole. Its ok for random folks to not understand what a black hole is. Its generally not ok for a tech reporter to not know his subject matter at all. The New Yorker writes some interesting stuff. But thats more like reading novels than reading "news". People claim that pre internet, media was less biased. But I doubt that thats true. It was just way easier for them to be biased because nobody could even potentially fact-check them.