> Most of the news that appears via AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, etc. is largely factually accurate. Especially when you're looking at their core competencies of cov

> Most of the news that appears via AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, etc. is largely factually accurate. Especially when you're looking at their core competencies of covering domestic US politics, basic foreign affairs, and domestic economics/business. E.g. they've been doing accurate jobs on factual reporting about the recent battles for house majority leader, events unfolding in Israel, and events unfolding in Ukraine. Sometimes you might be bothered with their "present both sides and don't take stance" but it's still largely factual, accurate reporting about what is happening and what public figures are saying. Regardless of how “factually accurate”, selective reporting is no different than selective omission. The very nature of a finite space to print (or display on the front page in the digital age) means that there is always an angle. Google News is an interesting one because they add a level of indirection. They pick the sources they’re willing to aggregate. It’ll never be all news everywhere. It can’t be anyway. There’s always going to be some editorialization, even in the selection of “factually accurate” information.