The reality is that truly neutral sources simply do not exist. Everybody has a point of view, that’s what makes us human, we will always interpret facts and events through the lens of our personal experience and our understanding of the world.
That is true, but there are people who are aware of that and try as much as possible to mitigate it. Where others go full on in trying to confirm their bias as much as possible.
Sure, but I don’t find it matters that much when you’re aware of the fact that people have biases as a reader. You can read news from any source and understand the slant of the publication. In fact, it can often be informative to read sources with known biases because the framing itself is informative. For example, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests.
Yes, but it is also important to financially support good journalism. That is what I am looking for in this post. That does not mean it is the only source of news one should read.
If you are looking for stuff to financially support specifically, I think sites that handle leaks are probably your best bet. They always need money between all the legal shit and the infrastructure that requires.
Sure, but I’d argue good journalism doesn’t have much to do with having a bias. It’s perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it’s not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.
What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.
The reality is that truly neutral sources simply do not exist. Everybody has a point of view, that’s what makes us human, we will always interpret facts and events through the lens of our personal experience and our understanding of the world.
That is true, but there are people who are aware of that and try as much as possible to mitigate it. Where others go full on in trying to confirm their bias as much as possible.
Sure, but I don’t find it matters that much when you’re aware of the fact that people have biases as a reader. You can read news from any source and understand the slant of the publication. In fact, it can often be informative to read sources with known biases because the framing itself is informative. For example, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests.
Yes, but it is also important to financially support good journalism. That is what I am looking for in this post. That does not mean it is the only source of news one should read.
If you are looking for stuff to financially support specifically, I think sites that handle leaks are probably your best bet. They always need money between all the legal shit and the infrastructure that requires.
I would not have though of that. That’s a very good recommendation! Thanks!
Sure, but I’d argue good journalism doesn’t have much to do with having a bias. It’s perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it’s not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.
What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.
I think that’s a better way of explaining what I meant with unbiased. It was an oversimplification on my side.