5 ms·

This sounds like a pretty childish take to be honest. Of course there is no such thing as objective news, but that's because reality isn't that simple either.

This sounds like a pretty childish take to be honest. Of course there is no such thing as objective news, but that's because reality isn't that simple either. CNN and most mainstream news are indeed trash (more like entertainment), but there is very good news out there. You have to find the right news source for the right topic. For American foreign policy, read The Intercept; for American domestic issues - Propublica, for middle eastern news - Al Jazeera English, and so on and so forth. News is never "objective facts" and neither should it be. Good journalists put news in the context of reality.

WanderPanda 5y ago
I was surprised when I found that Al Jazeera was the most neutral source of news (on non-middle eastern topics) I have seen in a while
naturalauction 5y ago
I’d be skeptical of Al Jazeera’s Middle East coverage. They are pretty much a Qatari state outlet and Qatar isn’t friendly with a lot of countries in the region. It certainly was an issue in the past https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cabl...
- fakedang 5y ago
  I (and a lot many other residents and citizens of ME countries) find Al Jazeera English to be pretty okay. They give very neutral reporting, and when they do shit on someone, it's usually against someone with a vested interest against Muslims (such as Netanyahu or Narendra Modi), which is to be expected from a Mideast media outlet. Now Al Jazeera Arabic though, that is one steaming hot pile of bullshit, that is still so popular in the Arab World that they call it the "people's news". Saudis and Emiratis alike used to watch it, likely because of their strongly biased reporting against their respective governments, as well as their pro-Muslim position on all matters. And interestingly, they were mostly allowed to broadcast in those countries up until recently.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I mean, if i was looking for objective coverage of the middle east, your comment sounds more like a criticism of Al Jazeera English than a support of it. Like, if i'm looking for neutral coverage of a region known for its religious conflicts, i wouldn't look for the news source that is pro a specific religion.
    - taurath 5y ago
      I don't think you'll find objective coverage of about anywhere - objectivity itself is an impossible goal and the more you look into you consider objective the less likely you are to find it. Even the driest readout of action/reaction has to decide what the scope of the reporting is. Any mention of blame, motivation, etc is inherently subjective. My rule to cut through this is try to watch reporting foreign to the place its produced, and then apply it through a lens of my personal values. AJE does a lot of reporting on the daily lives of people in the middle east, and for that its a very welcome source for me. Also if you know Qatar's particular political stance you can sort of de-slant a lot of reporting. Criticism of the west, especially of western militaries are something you literally cannot hear within US news. "region known for its religious conflicts" - I would sort of state that you're not being very objective there yourself. Islam is a religion but its also a really ingrained part of the culture in ways that christianity is not. It just means they're reflective of the culture thats produced it.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        > "region known for its religious conflicts" - I would sort of state that you're not being very objective there yourself. Islam is a religion but its also a really ingrained part of the culture in ways that christianity is not. It just means they're reflective of the culture thats produced it. Would it be better if i said ethno-religious conflicts? Regardless, one of the biggest conflicts in the middle east is probably Israel-Palestine, and its been that way for a long time. I'm not sure i would look to AJE for neutral coverage of that (I definitely wouldn't look towards western media either though)
tchvil 5y ago
"...Good journalists put news in the context of reality." Their reality, or the one of their editor. As it as always been. It just looks more obvious now, with all cross sources we can get.
notacoward 5y ago
The Intercept? Even if I agreed with Glem Greenwald's world view, I'd recognize it as among the most biased out there. for American foreign policy, I have a much simpler suggestion: any news from sources that aren't in the US or its chief geopolitical rivals (Russia and China). As a special bonus, you'll get less garbage news about things that don't matter, like the political ramifications of what Joe Biden had for lunch. And you might even learn something about the rest of the world, which is practically impossible from US media.
- greendude29 5y ago
  Greenwald is no longer with the intercept, and he hasn't been an editor for a long time. Much of the world is a part of the USs economic imperialism, and hence isn't as far from the mothership as you'd imagine. All sources have biases. At least TI does fully independent reporting.
  - greendude29 5y ago
    Quick example from today of excellent journalism: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/ https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billi... They also don't mix news and entertainment - the portion of the org that does TI is a non-profit.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      Nice bit of cherry-picking there. NYT (for example) also produces some excellent journalism. Little gems buried in mountains of crap. Making either your only recommendation will leave people who follow that recommendation covered in crap. They're sources to be used sparingly when those good articles appear, not as part of one's day-to-day effort to stay informed.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > Greenwald is no longer with the intercept Founders' influence often lingers long after the founders themselves. You think Greenwald didn't hire/collaborate with others who shared a similar world view?
Grim-444 5y ago
Looking at the front page of Propublica right now and it's just a straight up checklist of stories that people of a certain ideology believe. There's no opposing ideas or viewpoints present. They only run stories that the people reading it expect to read. One test I came up with recently is that if a source doesn't run stories that I disagree with, if they only have stories which I nod along to and agree with, then that source is horribly biased. It isn't that they're "right", that they only run "right" stories, it's that they're horribly biased.
- greendude29 5y ago
  I don't think that test does much. The original point was that there's no such thing as objective news, but rather facts put into context. If you're finding that context setting is consistent in its narrative, that's not a reason to recoil. As an example, put yourself in a highly contentious context of a historical situation - say the apartheid in South Africa. If you found a newspaper that always took a position counter to the white south African government, you would have found a good newspaper. That doesn't always work, but neither does a simple test like you've deviced.

WanderPanda 5y ago

I was surprised when I found that Al Jazeera was the most neutral source of news (on non-middle eastern topics) I have seen in a while

naturalauction 5y ago

I’d be skeptical of Al Jazeera’s Middle East coverage. They are pretty much a Qatari state outlet and Qatar isn’t friendly with a lot of countries in the region. It certainly was an issue in the past https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cabl...

fakedang 5y ago
I (and a lot many other residents and citizens of ME countries) find Al Jazeera English to be pretty okay. They give very neutral reporting, and when they do shit on someone, it's usually against someone with a vested interest against Muslims (such as Netanyahu or Narendra Modi), which is to be expected from a Mideast media outlet. Now Al Jazeera Arabic though, that is one steaming hot pile of bullshit, that is still so popular in the Arab World that they call it the "people's news". Saudis and Emiratis alike used to watch it, likely because of their strongly biased reporting against their respective governments, as well as their pro-Muslim position on all matters. And interestingly, they were mostly allowed to broadcast in those countries up until recently.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I mean, if i was looking for objective coverage of the middle east, your comment sounds more like a criticism of Al Jazeera English than a support of it. Like, if i'm looking for neutral coverage of a region known for its religious conflicts, i wouldn't look for the news source that is pro a specific religion.
  - taurath 5y ago
    I don't think you'll find objective coverage of about anywhere - objectivity itself is an impossible goal and the more you look into you consider objective the less likely you are to find it. Even the driest readout of action/reaction has to decide what the scope of the reporting is. Any mention of blame, motivation, etc is inherently subjective. My rule to cut through this is try to watch reporting foreign to the place its produced, and then apply it through a lens of my personal values. AJE does a lot of reporting on the daily lives of people in the middle east, and for that its a very welcome source for me. Also if you know Qatar's particular political stance you can sort of de-slant a lot of reporting. Criticism of the west, especially of western militaries are something you literally cannot hear within US news. "region known for its religious conflicts" - I would sort of state that you're not being very objective there yourself. Islam is a religion but its also a really ingrained part of the culture in ways that christianity is not. It just means they're reflective of the culture thats produced it.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      > "region known for its religious conflicts" - I would sort of state that you're not being very objective there yourself. Islam is a religion but its also a really ingrained part of the culture in ways that christianity is not. It just means they're reflective of the culture thats produced it. Would it be better if i said ethno-religious conflicts? Regardless, one of the biggest conflicts in the middle east is probably Israel-Palestine, and its been that way for a long time. I'm not sure i would look to AJE for neutral coverage of that (I definitely wouldn't look towards western media either though)

tchvil 5y ago

"...Good journalists put news in the context of reality." Their reality, or the one of their editor. As it as always been. It just looks more obvious now, with all cross sources we can get.

notacoward 5y ago

The Intercept? Even if I agreed with Glem Greenwald's world view, I'd recognize it as among the most biased out there. for American foreign policy, I have a much simpler suggestion: any news from sources that aren't in the US or its chief geopolitical rivals (Russia and China). As a special bonus, you'll get less garbage news about things that don't matter, like the political ramifications of what Joe Biden had for lunch. And you might even learn something about the rest of the world, which is practically impossible from US media.

greendude29 5y ago
Greenwald is no longer with the intercept, and he hasn't been an editor for a long time. Much of the world is a part of the USs economic imperialism, and hence isn't as far from the mothership as you'd imagine. All sources have biases. At least TI does fully independent reporting.
- greendude29 5y ago
  Quick example from today of excellent journalism: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/ https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billi... They also don't mix news and entertainment - the portion of the org that does TI is a non-profit.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    Nice bit of cherry-picking there. NYT (for example) also produces some excellent journalism. Little gems buried in mountains of crap. Making either your only recommendation will leave people who follow that recommendation covered in crap. They're sources to be used sparingly when those good articles appear, not as part of one's day-to-day effort to stay informed.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > Greenwald is no longer with the intercept Founders' influence often lingers long after the founders themselves. You think Greenwald didn't hire/collaborate with others who shared a similar world view?

Grim-444 5y ago

Looking at the front page of Propublica right now and it's just a straight up checklist of stories that people of a certain ideology believe. There's no opposing ideas or viewpoints present. They only run stories that the people reading it expect to read. One test I came up with recently is that if a source doesn't run stories that I disagree with, if they only have stories which I nod along to and agree with, then that source is horribly biased. It isn't that they're "right", that they only run "right" stories, it's that they're horribly biased.

greendude29 5y ago
I don't think that test does much. The original point was that there's no such thing as objective news, but rather facts put into context. If you're finding that context setting is consistent in its narrative, that's not a reason to recoil. As an example, put yourself in a highly contentious context of a historical situation - say the apartheid in South Africa. If you found a newspaper that always took a position counter to the white south African government, you would have found a good newspaper. That doesn't always work, but neither does a simple test like you've deviced.