> There's no point reading non-Western English language news if you don't know the owners and their biases. You can see biases to a degree by reading different

> There's no point reading non-Western English language news if you don't know the owners and their biases. You can see biases to a degree by reading different sources covering the same object. And I find the non-Western sources reveal the Western biases to a surprising degree, and there is much going on that isn't covered. My perspective on Israel and Africa are very different after reading some of the sources above. It's not that much harder than in the West: Rupert Murdoch's biases are clear but what are A. G. Sulzberger's? I can take a shot at some, but I don't really know much. > think tanks I read those directly too. One day I realized: instead of reading the NYT (or Washington Post or FT, etc.) article for a few paragraphs of expert knowledge, just read the think tank report - they are just as readable (a surprise to me, at the time), provide a whole different perspective, a different magnitude of knowledge, and do it much more efficiently. Still their biases can be hard to read - donors, etc. > There's no point ... it's all useless ... I've heard that too many times about everything in the last few years. I can't change the world by my lonesome self - nobody can - but people do change it. Plus, knowledge has a value in itself and understanding the world has applications to everything. And my mind is sharpened by reading the best - why waste that time on anything less? Great talking to you. I can go on if you like.