3 ms·

I have the same preference, but I don't like going to more than one place to find the different points of view. It'd be nice if there was an news aggregator tha

I have the same preference, but I don't like going to more than one place to find the different points of view. It'd be nice if there was an news aggregator that took each piece of news and had all of the different sources reporting it: a news site where each event is like reddit megathread containing the different sources, but not the discussion in a reddit megathread (the discussion could be somewhere else in a subdomain or something).

cyorir 7y ago
You are probably looking for an aggregator like AllSides.com . You can get articles from "left" "center" and "right" related to a given topic, like "campaign finance." However, if you are looking for coverage of specific events, you may find that only one or two sides cover that event. Each side basically has selective attention; they will cover an event that interests their primary audience and ignore events that don't interest their audience. For example, you will find many articles on impeachment from left and center sources, but the same developments in impeachment may not even be covered by the sources on the right. That's why I find the "look at articles from all perspectives" approach to be flawed. The sides aren't directly comparable. And there's no guarantee that the two sides will be equally trustworthy or equally verifiable. Instead, I choose to go to a handful of trusted sources that don't express much obvious bias in their news articles, but might have biased opinion sections. Washington Post, AP, NYT, Reuters, WSJ, etc. may all have faults and make some mistakes, but they are more reliable and more likely to employ ethics in their journalism than biased sources further on the left or right. Just make sure whether you are reading a news article or an opinion article.
- tareqak 7y ago
  I understand your concern, but I also consider it telling when a side chooses to not cover the event that is arguably in their domain of coverage. Maybe the news aggregator that I'm envisioning could also record these absences with something like "Source X: did not cover"?

cyorir 7y ago

You are probably looking for an aggregator like AllSides.com . You can get articles from "left" "center" and "right" related to a given topic, like "campaign finance." However, if you are looking for coverage of specific events, you may find that only one or two sides cover that event. Each side basically has selective attention; they will cover an event that interests their primary audience and ignore events that don't interest their audience. For example, you will find many articles on impeachment from left and center sources, but the same developments in impeachment may not even be covered by the sources on the right. That's why I find the "look at articles from all perspectives" approach to be flawed. The sides aren't directly comparable. And there's no guarantee that the two sides will be equally trustworthy or equally verifiable. Instead, I choose to go to a handful of trusted sources that don't express much obvious bias in their news articles, but might have biased opinion sections. Washington Post, AP, NYT, Reuters, WSJ, etc. may all have faults and make some mistakes, but they are more reliable and more likely to employ ethics in their journalism than biased sources further on the left or right. Just make sure whether you are reading a news article or an opinion article.

tareqak 7y ago
I understand your concern, but I also consider it telling when a side chooses to not cover the event that is arguably in their domain of coverage. Maybe the news aggregator that I'm envisioning could also record these absences with something like "Source X: did not cover"?