3 ms·
Or just report god damn facts like a wikipedia article. I'm sick of all these opinions being passed off as news these days. If something is an opinion or assess
by colordrops 4y ago
Or just report god damn facts like a wikipedia article. I'm sick of all these opinions being passed off as news these days. If something is an opinion or assessment by the journalist, it should be marked in bold with red flashing letters. Yes facts can be omitted or selectively woven to support a narrative, but that's a different problem, and can be relatively easily detected by cross referencing sources.
- cyberbanjo 4y agoBest source of news is Wikipedia, honestly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
- mgh2 4y agoWikipedia can be edited by anyone, what is stopping anonymous bad actors from manipulating it? The same can be said of anything on the internet, largely controlled by big tech, what is stopping them from manipulating information for profit?
- leetcrew 4y agonothing really, but for some reason I trust an army of unpaid pedantic nerds over editors at actual newspapers. you still see some heavily slanted articles on wikipedia from time to time, but rarely do they trip my bias meter as hard as your average NYT or Reason article.
- noxer 4y agoThese "unpaid pedantic nerds" have as you can imagine common interests, opinions and ideas. Its only logical that they also have the same or similar biases. And the more they align with yours the less likely they will trip your bias meter.
- kornhole 4y agoState and corporate actors do employ many of these editors. I am suspect of any Wikipedia pages covering some topics or people.
- wolverine876 4y agoThat claim isn't even up to Wikipedia's standards: What support can you provide?
- FredPret 4y agoFree, informative, has links for deeper exploration, and best of all, a little boring.
- chasil 4y agoI see the value in your perspective, also.
- noxer 4y agoWikipedia does not report facts for journalistically relevant events. It documents journalistic "reactions". "Newspaper X wrote Y" is factually true if newspaper X indeed wrote Y and NOT if Y is true. This in combination with the fact that they (who?) decides which newspapers are accepted, makes Wikipedia very much a propaganda tool when it comes to politically relevant topics and events. They do the "selecting and omitting" to support a narrative all the time.
- kornhole 4y agoThe stock quotes and sports scores are the only unbiased sections.