3 ms·
I've been sticking to reading https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ and my local PBS/NPR-affiliate's local news coverage. Yes, both are biased and lean t
by bradfa 3y ago
I've been sticking to reading https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ and my local PBS/NPR-affiliate's local news coverage. Yes, both are biased and lean towards the liberal end of the news spectrum, but neither seems to push modern news shock and awe tactics nearly as evidently and I feel like I'm aware enough of what's going on locally and in the world to have decent conversations in social settings.
One nice thing about not fully comprehending what's going on in the news is that in social situations you can ask others lots of questions about current events and the people you're talking to will feel very proud that they can explain things to someone else. It's a good ice breaker, at least until it gets to be all political...
- Forgeties79 3y ago>yes both are biased I’ve never understood why we need to make these caveats. “Objective” or “just the facts” news has never existed. It’s impossible. I’m not knocking you, I just think it’s silly you should even feel pressure to publicly acknowledge something so patently obvious, yet we both know that if you didn’t the chance is high that the first comment you’d get is a complaint about your “biased” media outlets. As if any other kind exists lol
- xvedejas 3y agoIf you don't say this, someone somewhere on the internet will accuse you of thinking your news source is perfectly unbiased, even if you never said such a thing. It's a useful caveat just to try and defuse that kind of low signal argumentation.
- Forgeties79 3y agoYeah that’s what I said lol
- wak90 3y agoUnderstanding that unbiased reporting is a farce requires some understanding of media literacy and in my experience most people do not have that literacy nor a desire to learn about it. So the caveat is unfortunately necessary.
- Forgeties79 3y agoI agree, I’m just venting how annoying it is that it’s even required.