A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
Half or more of the accounts have a very clear agenda.
Everyone has an agenda; if this makes you uncomfortable, strengthen your critical thinking skills.
The desire for a neutral source is a desire to stop thinking critically about the information you consume.
Well said and yea if you find a "unbiased source" for news, you've only fallen for their bias.
Be critical even of what interests you, and read things you don't like as well.
This is just wrong as a general statement.
Across the world there are a lot of news sources that give their best to be neutral and objective.
After reading all the comments here I'm starting to realize that Lemmy is very jaded. Explains why things are such a mess maybe.
That's something that a lot of people miss, though: in many cases you can't be both neutral and objective. If one assessment of an issue is objectively true and the other is preposterous, neutrality itself is a subjective bias.
Non-exhaustive list of topics where a false equivalence neutrality actually distorts reality: climate change, evolution of the species; poverty and the roots thereof; racism and other discrimination; crime and the "justice" system in general.
Name one.
Reuters & Associated Press
They focus on America, as such have a broadly Western bias. Are they less biased than others? Probably. But you cannot report the news without some form of bias. The act of looking at an event and deciding what facts to include and what to leave out introduces some level of bias. As it is impossible to include every detail of an event, especially in text form, youβll end up with a biased retelling
More to the point: where does anybody go for any reliable news? It seems like most news is now using hyperbole to make it entertainment. We have old man Rupert to thank for basically destroying a respected profession. That's my 0.02 anyhow.
While not perfect AP and Reuters are ok. The news they report is honest but their shortcoming is what they don't report.
This is how I do it as well. In general, understanding the overall bias of each news organization is more important to keeping yourself informed. You can combat the echo chamber effect by knowing what the biases of each source is and using differing sourcing to try to get as complete a picture as you can.
I would add to your list to check BBC, Al Jazeera, and NPR if you're US focused.
I haven't found any issues with Reuters but AP did this which is suspect on many levels:
Migrant Boat NFT
On January 10, 2022, AP announced it would start selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) of their photographs in partnership with a company named Xooa, with the proceeds being used to fund their operations.[103] One of the NFTs they promoted on Twitter on 24 February was an aerial shot depicting an overcrowded migrant boat in the Mediterranean Sea. The tweet received negative backlash from users and other journalists, with AP being accused of profiting off of human suffering and the picture choice being "dystopian" and "in extremely poor taste". The tweet was subsequently deleted and the NFT, which was to be sold the next day, was pulled from market. Global director of media relations Lauren Easton apologized, saying "This was a poor choice of imagery for an NFT. It has not and will not be put up for auction [...] AP's NFT marketplace is a very early pilot program, and we are immediately reviewing our efforts".[104][105]
They aren't great when you see a lot of their stories go by at one time, it's not consistent.
Those are pretty good examples. They are still not great places to go but they certainly suck a whole lot less than the others. Hell, even the weather is now being reported as entertainment.
I wish for AP to have RSS feeds, but they don't. I think they and Reuters are aome of the better outlets out there and I've been (re)discovering RSS lately, but AP is one of the few news outlets that don't seem to support it :(
I find these two to be good for finding sources with different perspectives:
After some time, you might see that there are a few specific sites that you like, and you can just start going to them directly.
+1 to Ground News. I browsed them with a free account for a short time before subscribing to the middle tier. Their tools are really terrific at getting me to look at multiple sides of the same stories, and the blind spot feature is fantastic. I've been very satisfied with it and go to it multiple times a day.
I would argue trying to find news on social media is the big mistake. It's absolutely bad on Lemmy, but it's not that much better on other platforms. Any story that isn't a "win" for the larger portion of people on the platform will naturally struggle to get attention.
There's a whole rabbit hole to go down in trying to find a way to get a solid, rounded and accurate view of current events, but imo step one should be to throw away social media as a news source. It's only popular because the algorithms on other platforms will tell people what they want to hear.
This is unhelpful, but... I just don't look at the news. If something actually important happens, I'll hear about it indirectly and go look it up if I care, but I've found that not being tapped into the news (and especially political news) all day every day does wonders for my mental health.
Same
If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you read the news, you're misinformed
Probably not what you want to hear but I've been absolutely bombarded with the right wing perspective my entire life and I'm pretty glad to have a place that doesn't try to both sides everything. Where do I get my news? Twitter mostly I come here if I want to see something discussed further
Set up an Rss feed for AP and Reuters
As others have said, you have to think critically about every piece of news you read. Ask yourself what the opposite side on a story might think, or look for an alternative opinion. If you're reading an article in The Economist, read an article in Le Monde Diplomatique on the same subject. If you're reading something about Russia in the Washington Post, read an article in RT on the same topic. Think critically, and the truth is likely somewhere between the two opposing points.
International mass media is a form of soft power for countries to exert influence. It's not a conspiracy it's a tool available to governments which is why you have the BBC, CGTN, RT, PressTV, CBC, etc. That the mass media in the USA is mostly private doesn't change that fact and make it more independent, because the USA is essentially an ogliopoly.
What specifically do you want lemmy mods to "stop?" What kind of lies are they spreading? What do you consider disinformation. Complaining that your world view isn't being catered to is a lot less useful then pointing out specific things you find sus.
I read the Newsletters from NPR and Morning Brew. If something catches my eye, I'll look it up on ground.news then find something marked "center" to get more details.
But, isn't that sort of the point of Lemmy? Link aggregation?
I've been going to all the individual sites as well since leaving Reddit. But, only because the news and politics culture in Lemmy is so atrocious.
Despite its faults, Reddit did an okay job of moderation. It's a shit show here. The posts are all either bots or edgy 8th graders from troll communities. It's a mess.
Someone (maybe you?) is going to have to be the place to go to as a place to trust to not alter headlines and aggregate. This issue here now is moderation, one person can't do it all but no one wants to do it either
Ha, man, finally, 20 comments in and someone understands the question.
Based on all the responses so far I'm assuming a well moderated place doesn't exist on Lemmy yet, which is disappointing. I was hoping I just hadn't discovered it yet.
I don't get my news from any social media platform, including lemmy, no offense to lemmy. I used to do that with reddit, but it's just too unhinged getting your news that way.
I stick with Associated Press, Reuters, and The New York Times, in that order. I also use Google News specifically for local news, but I don't even peek at the main world news feed there.
More generally speaking, I stick to the old school human editorial board for my news. News that's presented to me on AP, for example, has already been filtered by a board of humans who are smarter than me and whose opinions I trust on the state of the world. Opening up your selection of news to an easily gameable social media algorithm is just more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion.
This doesn't ask your question, but this may be of useful to people, anyway.
I've just joined ground.news, a pay site. The great part about this site is that it rates news as to left, center, or right leaning, and rates the "factuality" of the sites. Filtering out non-factual knocks out a large part of the outlier's lies, and shows who the people are, who push them. like knowing the players pushing their agenda. One caveat is that some that push lies still slide through by quoting the people who spout lies without disclaimers of the reliabilty of their false claims. One rule of thumb that I find helpful is that I mentally filter out any pleas to emotionalism. Manipulating readers/viewers emotionally is the opposite of informing. Sites that try to be centrist and ignore whether the sources are reliable about facts, end up being half lies or propagandsa. It is useful to keep in mind that blatently propaganda sites work in some truth to give themselves some plausibility. Only the highest reliable news are worth letting in to your news sphere.
This is a worldwide problem as paid propagandaists muddy the news sphere. Welcome to our cyber warfare world.
This is what I got: Some are more active than others.
I don't really use social media for that, to be honest. I just get info from my friends, but if I seek out news myself I'll usually just check the BBC, free news that has to be as impartial as possible. Maybe the Financial Times is alright too, but they paywall their articles and they're more intended for investors than the average person.
I don't. Lemmy seems to have the same issue as Reddit where people are towards the extremes with the only moderate people being those who don't want to talk about politics in the first place.
I like to listen to CSPAN while at work, especially their morning show "The Washington Journal" where most of the content are regular Americans calling in to talk directly to guests or about issues they feel are important.
Where did you go on Reddit? The only place back there I really trusted was AskHistorians and 20 years ago is not really breaking news. Everywhere else I had to sort through crap for myself.
~~If you really want to understand the world, you'll actually have to study it.~~
Edit: It's interesting I still got upvotes, since OP correctly points out that wasn't well worded.
What I'm trying to say is that news with no bias is pretty much a unicorn, and one you can't identify at a glance. And I don't even mean just political bias, a lot of important stuff is boring or otherwise unsuitable for the news cycle. Adding a layer of social media people on top doesn't automatically make it better.
What does that even mean? If I want to understand the world I need to study it?
Lol, wtf? I'm looking for current events. What level of prerequisite historical knowledge would I need where I could bipass what is happening right now all over the world?
And shit... All of Reddit is bad except askhistorians? What?
So, if I understand you correctly, your advice is that I shouldn't trust news and I should study the world? What source should I use to study? Are all sources bias? I'm fucking confused
Clearly they're saying you should hop in a hot air balloon and travel around the world spotting breaking news with your own eyes.
RSS to get a typical feed that people have become accustomed to. Set up RSS from sources you want to see then see. You get to see more instead of what individuals cherry picked for whatever reason.
Unbiased news is impossible. If someone is saying that he's giving you unbiased and objective news, he's scamming you.
Good luck finding reliable news anywhere, this including the major TV and News organizations.
Lemmy and Reddit in general havenβt been good for reliable news for me. Iβve been using Artifact for the past few months to have a more personalized feed, but I much prefer picking my own RSS feeds.
The only thing that is lacking for me about RSS feeds is the ability to discuss content. If Lemmy can fill that void, Iβll gladly switch over.
Biggest https://emm.newsbrief.eu/NewsBrief/clusteredition/en/latest.html Google News Alerts https://www.howtogeek.com/444549/how-to-create-an-rss-feed-from-a-google-alert/
.json file for RSS https://controlc.com/2ea2be74