4 ms·
Very fair point. I think most media (and consumers) would agree with you as they've found success with opinion-based programming and editorials. I usually get
by everdev 8y ago
Very fair point. I think most media (and consumers) would agree with you as they've found success with opinion-based programming and editorials.
I usually get frustrated with opinion-based content though because it seems to me that it's more about posturing, being the loudest/funniest, looks/appearance, etc. and less about trying to uncover good solutions to real problems.
However, as you mentioned, no one is impartial, so that leaves me with very little content I enjoy consuming which is not that great either in terms of staying informed or engaged.
- dagw 8y agoI get where you're coming from, and if all you want is a chronological list of things that happened there always Reuters. But let's say Congress passes a bill. One story could be "Today the bill passes X votes to Y, all Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for. Here's a link to the complete text to the bill" But that's not really what I want. What I want is for someone to tell me the potential implications of the bill, and that cannot be done in a truly unbiased way since you're essentially speculating. Then it is better to have two 'biased' people putting forward their best, honest and good faith arguments for and against the potential impact of the bill. Ideally with both of them being willing to concede the relative merits of the others argument.
- everdev 8y agoTotally agree, I just don't know how we get to "best, honest and good faith arguments" or if that really exists. News seems so dominated by posturing and pandering to a target audience.