It is not silly, depending on what one does with it. This is a bit linger than you may expect, but I do take this topic quite seriously and wish more people wo

It is not silly, depending on what one does with it. This is a bit linger than you may expect, but I do take this topic quite seriously and wish more people would. I have a specific set of criteria for how I evaluate media[0] The two sides problem is chronic.[1] I compare their mission statement and other branding type information to their output and if there is solid alignment, I can have some degree of confidence they are honest in their bias. They are left, but are independent in terms of media consolidation. Most orgs are owned by a handful of people, and they have many conflicts of interest.[2] That kind of thing also generally leads to poor alignment between their output and their stated biases. In media, bias is OK. In fact, it is the norm. Nobody, and I literally mean nobody produces objective material. To do that requires very significant time, people and resources. Does not ever happen on a news cycle. The best way I know to deal with that is to accept bias and see whether a given org is honest about their bias. This group is. That helps me know what I am getting. [0] Evaluating media There is always bias. Question is whether a media entity is honest about it. Next up is clarity. Are fact and opinion clearly differentiated? If yes, then one can get informed and also consider their take on what facts may mean. Do they publish retractions, errors and the like? If so, then I have some greater basis for using them to be informed. [1] I use these criteria because of the two sides problem: There are facts and there is what people think they mean. High clarity media makes it easy to discern and get informed while also taking their point of view as one of many out there. Many media orgs lean on two sides and claim objectivity or neutrality. Both of these are a disservice and should be discouraged and for damn sure anyone leaning this way is bot authoritative. Two sides does the most harm when it is used to manufacture controversy and or limit the scope of discussion. The manufacturing of controversy generally includes putting an expert and a blathering drivel expert together for a "you decide" type presentation. I need not say more. The more subtle harm is the idea of there being only two sides when the reality is far more diverse. Many points of view are marginalized away when we need them the most! Clarity helps a lot when one is looking to reason about some facts. A diverse set of opinion can help to formulate our own take. [2] Conflicts of interest A great example can be seen in the near complete lack of news presented from a labor point of view. We just do not do that inbthe USA. We used to. When I was a kid, primary school education included identifying what point of view a news item was written from. Labor vs corporatists or back then, big business or management were used. As time passed, labor news evaporated as media consolidation happened. Indie orgs are the primary source for that today, and that is part of why this org is worthy of consideration. And definitely does not merit being incorrectly labeled as right wing.