3 ms·

I would personally pay for good, unbiased journalism. Good luck finding that.

unstatusthequo 5y ago
Exactly. Seems most of these big media conglomerates are leaning left. And a minority right. And then we look to what as the zero-influence news source? Not sure it can even be a corporation or organization because that’s inherently controlled by some person or persons who have left or right bias. If only there were social news networks…. Oh wait. ;) I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
- blooalien 5y ago
  > I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ Thanks! You just gave me my new favorite news source.
- rc_mob 5y ago
  Plz try not to see the world as left/right. The lenses of honest/dishonest and smart/stupid are a much better way to look at the media.
- tyre 5y ago
  “Left” and “right” is horribly reductive. I don’t know a single person who agrees with everything thrown into those simplistic buckets. Take even the Supreme Court. Multiple “right” judges voted to uphold the ACA and abortion restrictions; things that would certainly be top on the list of “left vs. right”. Pay attention to the specific issues.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    In principle I agree with this but you have to have a certain baseline level of privilege yo even get the choice of choosing D/R in the US. If you’re a minority or marginalized group [1] you’re basically stuck huddling around the Democrats regardless of how you think of their broader views. I’m a super liberal person so it works out for me accidentally but I have libertarian friends who would for sure vote Republican if it wasn’t for baseline existence issues like BLM or gay marriage. Like all actual policy discussions happen within parties because of this. It’s easier to get the Democrats to be a little more conservative than get Republicans to support trans healthcare. [1] in the colloquial usage don’t @ me with X is 49% of the population
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    I agree with you but I wouldn’t have used the supreme court as an example. The justices are supposed to decide whether a law is constitutional, not whether they agree with it—at least in theory, and they try to keep up some semblance of appearances. A lot of the ACA arguments the court heard were incredibly stupid. And they still have struck down parts of the law.
- watwut 5y ago
  What are you talking about? Right wing media space is large and powerful. Fox alone is massive anf then you have huge amount of talk radio, podcasts, journals and so on.
rc_mob 5y ago
I've found vox news to be ... mediocre. just about everything else is junk. thank god for certain subreddits that do a good job of aggregating news
numpad0 5y ago
Every pieces of information is always biased unless its Shannon entropy is zero. Your FM radio tuned to nothing is basically it. You’re welcome. Here’s my cryptocurrency address:[just kidding]
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  Sure, but I would like journalism that at least tries. On All Things Considered on NPR a couple of weeks ago one of the hosts was interviewing someone about perceived media bias, and she seemed flabbergasted that people thought they had a bias. It seems to me they (and other organizations) might be in such a bubble they don't even realize it anymore.
  - Notanothertoo 5y ago
    It's part of their brand, I have so many hardcore liberal friends "npr is not biased". They also rarely entertain counter arguments ever, and they take a pc twist to everything. Few years ago they were pushing that banks were biased against black people (directly and intentional) because they on average had higher interest rates. Completely ignoring the broader societal segregation that causes minority concentration in certain neighborhoods and those neighborhoods on average at the whole end up being lower income higher risk. Obviously there are many problems with the modern "segregated" neighborhoods and why the exist at all but the banks were just using their risk models. They want your money regardless of skin color.. Not that the right is any better, although they don't presume to know as often, I think the biggest issue I have with the left is the lack of internal accountability and productive discourse. I remember 2010-2015, I had many liberal friends that wouldn't here an argument unless it came from a "well respected" academic study. As if there aren't problems with the paper review process or that any ideas outside of high Academia are worthwhile. But I digress...
crocodiletears 5y ago
This is exactly the issue. I don't trust any of these organizations alone with my information diet. I can't afford to subscribe to them all, but I don't want to favor one over the other. I've opted out and used page archives, which are better because I don't have to worry as much about unlisted shadow edits to content post-publication.
machinehermiter 5y ago
I think at this point what would work better is explicitly biased journalism but with multiple samples of the same story, in the same context, on the same page even. What doesn't work for me is this pretend "unbiased" highly biased lets turn journalism into a partisan infotainment team sport form of journalism.

Exactly. Seems most of these big media conglomerates are leaning left. And a minority right. And then we look to what as the zero-influence news source? Not sure it can even be a corporation or organization because that’s inherently controlled by some person or persons who have left or right bias. If only there were social news networks…. Oh wait. ;) I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

blooalien 5y ago
> I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/ Thanks! You just gave me my new favorite news source.
rc_mob 5y ago
Plz try not to see the world as left/right. The lenses of honest/dishonest and smart/stupid are a much better way to look at the media.
tyre 5y ago
“Left” and “right” is horribly reductive. I don’t know a single person who agrees with everything thrown into those simplistic buckets. Take even the Supreme Court. Multiple “right” judges voted to uphold the ACA and abortion restrictions; things that would certainly be top on the list of “left vs. right”. Pay attention to the specific issues.
- Spivak 5y ago
  In principle I agree with this but you have to have a certain baseline level of privilege yo even get the choice of choosing D/R in the US. If you’re a minority or marginalized group [1] you’re basically stuck huddling around the Democrats regardless of how you think of their broader views. I’m a super liberal person so it works out for me accidentally but I have libertarian friends who would for sure vote Republican if it wasn’t for baseline existence issues like BLM or gay marriage. Like all actual policy discussions happen within parties because of this. It’s easier to get the Democrats to be a little more conservative than get Republicans to support trans healthcare. [1] in the colloquial usage don’t @ me with X is 49% of the population
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  I agree with you but I wouldn’t have used the supreme court as an example. The justices are supposed to decide whether a law is constitutional, not whether they agree with it—at least in theory, and they try to keep up some semblance of appearances. A lot of the ACA arguments the court heard were incredibly stupid. And they still have struck down parts of the law.
watwut 5y ago
What are you talking about? Right wing media space is large and powerful. Fox alone is massive anf then you have huge amount of talk radio, podcasts, journals and so on.

rc_mob 5y ago

I've found vox news to be ... mediocre. just about everything else is junk. thank god for certain subreddits that do a good job of aggregating news

numpad0 5y ago

Every pieces of information is always biased unless its Shannon entropy is zero. Your FM radio tuned to nothing is basically it. You’re welcome. Here’s my cryptocurrency address:[just kidding]

AuryGlenz 5y ago
Sure, but I would like journalism that at least tries. On All Things Considered on NPR a couple of weeks ago one of the hosts was interviewing someone about perceived media bias, and she seemed flabbergasted that people thought they had a bias. It seems to me they (and other organizations) might be in such a bubble they don't even realize it anymore.
- Notanothertoo 5y ago
  It's part of their brand, I have so many hardcore liberal friends "npr is not biased". They also rarely entertain counter arguments ever, and they take a pc twist to everything. Few years ago they were pushing that banks were biased against black people (directly and intentional) because they on average had higher interest rates. Completely ignoring the broader societal segregation that causes minority concentration in certain neighborhoods and those neighborhoods on average at the whole end up being lower income higher risk. Obviously there are many problems with the modern "segregated" neighborhoods and why the exist at all but the banks were just using their risk models. They want your money regardless of skin color.. Not that the right is any better, although they don't presume to know as often, I think the biggest issue I have with the left is the lack of internal accountability and productive discourse. I remember 2010-2015, I had many liberal friends that wouldn't here an argument unless it came from a "well respected" academic study. As if there aren't problems with the paper review process or that any ideas outside of high Academia are worthwhile. But I digress...

crocodiletears 5y ago

This is exactly the issue. I don't trust any of these organizations alone with my information diet. I can't afford to subscribe to them all, but I don't want to favor one over the other. I've opted out and used page archives, which are better because I don't have to worry as much about unlisted shadow edits to content post-publication.

machinehermiter 5y ago

I think at this point what would work better is explicitly biased journalism but with multiple samples of the same story, in the same context, on the same page even. What doesn't work for me is this pretend "unbiased" highly biased lets turn journalism into a partisan infotainment team sport form of journalism.