4 ms·

I would be happy with just opinion free and divisive speech free headlines. If the big outlets could simply start with that, it might be attainable. Words mat

I would be happy with just opinion free and divisive speech free headlines. If the big outlets could simply start with that, it might be attainable. Words matter. In the meantime. https://legiblenews.com/ https://legiblenews.com/

ouid 9y ago
This doesn't seem to be all that much better. the "war" section is A at the top, and B the only headlines there explicitly generate fear and outrage.
- frankydp 9y ago
  It is alphabetical. Also it is wikipedia edits from the previous day, some days do not have that section, but I would say that is rare. The blurbs do seem to be more statement of fact than op ed especially compared to media outlets. Also humans are messy.
hkmurakami 9y ago
The Economist, while not devoid of biases, is as close as we have to this.
- frankydp 9y ago
  I would also suggest that the LA Times does seem to apply a lot of effort into separating OP/ED and news. They do publish a lot of op/ed, but it is decently separated.
- stass 9y ago
  Wall Street Journal is still very good as well. I wonder if the fact that their articles are not available for free is one of the reasons?
icebraining 9y ago
There's no such thing as "opinion free". The events you choose to cover, the facts you choose to highlight, the people you interview, even the timing, are all based on opinion. Opinions and ideology are what guide us. A better policy, in my opinion, is to explicitly acknowledge one's opinions and ideologies, and to have some humility, recognizing at all times that one may be wrong.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  There's a difference between at least attempting to be unbiased, and knowingly exaggerating.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Hence the humility. But I don't know if the shrill voices aren't less dangerous than the supposedly "impartial" ones. At least you can usually tell what horse are they betting on.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      What if there are only shrill voices left?
21 9y ago
Wow, this is exactly what I want, a TL;DR for news. Too bad this is so limited in scope. I get the point of long form, and all that, but sometimes you just want the gist of it instead of digging in a 5k word article which starts from the childhood.
therealdrag0 9y ago
Looks like it's sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events I used to check that regularly for a while. Now I don't check the news at all. I realized it doesn't seem to affect my life much more than other forms of entertainment.

ouid 9y ago

This doesn't seem to be all that much better. the "war" section is A at the top, and B the only headlines there explicitly generate fear and outrage.

frankydp 9y ago
It is alphabetical. Also it is wikipedia edits from the previous day, some days do not have that section, but I would say that is rare. The blurbs do seem to be more statement of fact than op ed especially compared to media outlets. Also humans are messy.

hkmurakami 9y ago

The Economist, while not devoid of biases, is as close as we have to this.

frankydp 9y ago
I would also suggest that the LA Times does seem to apply a lot of effort into separating OP/ED and news. They do publish a lot of op/ed, but it is decently separated.
stass 9y ago
Wall Street Journal is still very good as well. I wonder if the fact that their articles are not available for free is one of the reasons?

icebraining 9y ago

There's no such thing as "opinion free". The events you choose to cover, the facts you choose to highlight, the people you interview, even the timing, are all based on opinion. Opinions and ideology are what guide us. A better policy, in my opinion, is to explicitly acknowledge one's opinions and ideologies, and to have some humility, recognizing at all times that one may be wrong.

nerfhammer 9y ago
There's a difference between at least attempting to be unbiased, and knowingly exaggerating.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Hence the humility. But I don't know if the shrill voices aren't less dangerous than the supposedly "impartial" ones. At least you can usually tell what horse are they betting on.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    What if there are only shrill voices left?

21 9y ago

Wow, this is exactly what I want, a TL;DR for news. Too bad this is so limited in scope. I get the point of long form, and all that, but sometimes you just want the gist of it instead of digging in a 5k word article which starts from the childhood.

therealdrag0 9y ago

Looks like it's sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events I used to check that regularly for a while. Now I don't check the news at all. I realized it doesn't seem to affect my life much more than other forms of entertainment.