Not that I have a horse in this race, but… Your information is always going to be sourced and/or presented by humans with bias. Isn’t it better when that bias

Not that I have a horse in this race, but… Your information is always going to be sourced and/or presented by humans with bias. Isn’t it better when that bias is transparent? A solo author draws their reader into a proxy conversation with them (which naturally lends itself to some level of persuasion most of the time). As a reader (I believe) your job is to pay enough attention to catch the author if they’re off-base or not playing fairly, so that you’ll walk away with more accurate understanding than you started. I suppose if you don’t want to be challenged by a proxy dialogue then a better medium for you would be statistical analysis or a scientific, structured study, but unfortunately most topics just don’t get the dedicated resources to do that properly. I’ve seen the aggregators and summary bots as well, but that seems even worse: Cherry-picking “facts” from an essay without seeing the context around them? A recipe for misunderstanding and/or getting the wool pulled over your eyes. Maybe the best solution is for every article to have a comments section where folks can point out inaccuracies and inconsistencies to help each other out? Citizen fact-checkers? Then you wind up with… this same article, as-is, posted on Hacker News alongside intelligent debate ;)