I don’t know if I should change the title to ‘does unbiased media exist?’
I just found out a Washington Post cartoonist quit after a Bezos satire she draw was rejected.
I was until today a reader of said newspaper, but after this kind of censorship I don’t know if I should keep reading it.
Note that I’m not looking for media sources that fabricate outrage either for the left or for the right or news sources whose business model is to editorialize titles to work people up. I’m just looking for unbiased media sources.
Maybe this was a stupid question: everyone is biased, or am I wrong?
All are biased.
If there’s an event occurring within the last few days I’ll check AP and a couple other moderate/right sources to check/compare spin.
After a few days there’s usually a pod out on it from the left view. I like It Could Happen Here, Some More News, and Even More News. They’re incredibly well sourced, and are out in the open about their biases.
Even when there’s no editorializing there’s selection bias. That selection is due to capacity or the political viewpoint of the reporting. You won’t see stories that are less relevant to reporter/editor interest.
Bias exists in all media, we must simply consume media critically with the relevant biases in mind
If i may ask - what does “consume media critically” mean?
How is the process description for that? I’m genuinely interested. I see the word “critical thinking” thrown around a lot but it was never explained to me even in the slightest bit. What does it entail?
When you read with an awareness of the source and the larger context in which it was written, and you’re trying to actively decide what to believe based on what can be substantiated, that is at least a part of reading critically.
It’s not taught well in schools, and most people nowadays are simply reading headlines and reacting based on their gut feeling. Such people are easily swayed for the worse, but difficult to help.
You’re right, everyone is biased. It’s part of human nature. The bezt you can do about it is to be aware of biases, how they work, how to recognize them, and how to avoid them. Then practice those avoidance techniques.
It is not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than not helping the situation
In Canada, the CBC has the least amount of bias of any domestic news source.
Going International, I would say AP, PBS, NPR, Reuters, BBC.
Everyone’s biased imo. I like propublica’s biases.
My local newspaper.
None. All are biased. The best way is to read multiple news sources being aware of what their biases are.
I wouldn’t just say “all are biased”.
Some just outright make things up. (looking at you, Fox News entertainment)
Most news organizations either are paid by the government or by some corporate stockholders (usually the rich).
It’s difficult to find unbiased news sources. There are some smaller ones, which are paid by private donations, but they often have inferior quality due to … appealing mostly to 18-y/o women who want “to make a change” and stuff (my opinion)
long story short, finding factual news sources is extremely difficult and i’ve basically given up on it. i can study physics to understand what is plausible and what is not, but i have no way to decide whether reporting on far-away events is biased or how much.
Every source has a bias, sometimes what is NOT reported is a stronger signal then what is reported.
I pull news from multiple biased sources and stitch together my own view.
The Economist (USA), BBC (UK), Reuters(UK), Al Jazerra (QAT) , CGTN (china), CNA (SGP) - Gives quite the picture of events, from multiple perspectives!
Remember the Left-Right spectrum is only a very shallow view of the world, its multidimensional politics out there with many different incentives!
Have a check of !news_summary@lemmy.dbzer0.com ive got generated ai summaries of some of those sources. If u got an rss feed u would reccommend i add lmk.
Yeah, I’m subscribed. I like the summaries! It’s a good idea.
I’m not sure if its possible, but can you torture your model to try to generate a one sentence summary as well, kinda like - make a factual headline for this article that is short and succinct!
https://www.economist.com/rss - They do enjoy their paywalls, might need to link to one of the ladders as well, like archive.is
Thats essentially whats gonna go into the daily brief.
Paywalls shouldnt be too much of an issue its already working for nytimes.
This project looks cool, but just a friendly reminder that LLMs can be biased too, so take that into consideration.
In general, any summary is a form of bias - you decide what is important and what can be left out. Relying on summarizes leaves you vulnerable to the summarizer’s own bias - in this case an LLM, which is no innocent of biases.
In my onion, agreeing with Jet here, reading different sources from different countries yourself is probably the best.
Might take more time, but if it’s a story you’re interested in and not something you do because you have to then it’s different.
Associated Press and Reuters.
note that in addition to staff reporting, the ap is also reliant on member publications–which means that those biases end up on ‘the wire’, too.
Genuine question, what about Politico?
AP, Routers, BBC, Al Jazeera.
Whenever I want to know the facts without any editorializing, I go for AP.
NPR isn’t too bad.
I don’t think unbiased media exist. But some are at least less biased. And you want some bias towards scientific reasoning, honesty and meritocracy. Otherwise you introduce too much noise (which is one reason why being absolute about free speech leads to less free speech, and also the reason electronic warfare is something prioritized by politically weak and/or military weak state actors). Less noise usually correlate with what people perceive as left leaning or liberal bias (in the western political landscape of 2025). Might be very related to this. Also, I think it’s OK with biased media as long as one is open and explicit about it.
In Sweden I use Omni which is a commercial news aggregator, which I find relatively unbiased or balanced. Public service is pretty good as well.
For American news, I usually go for NPR first. Don’t know if they are super unbiased, but at least they are not full on crazy.
I’ve tried Ground News, but I feel it’s a bit too focused on politics of the English speaking sphere.
All corporate news has been moved to the right, even NPR. For all practical purposes, local news has been eliminated. Local news formed the basis for trust and truth. Getting you news at a local ground level creates trust - you may know the reporter or you kids go to school with his kids. There is nothing wrong with news bias if you have sources that you can trust to report the truth and not omit critical information. That said, seek out and listen to people like Timothy Snyder, who have important messages. Here’s a clip of him talking about how the internet has changed and corrupted our news and views.
I like listening to Belle of the Ranch, because she succinctly explains important topics that the MSM does not - note she does present views from a more leftist angle.
Steve Shives is a Youtuber does not report the news but offers opinion that might inspire you to do further research. Finding good reliable news sources takes work, while junk news is cheap, readily available and detrimental to you.Looking at stuff from out of country can help.
CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK both cover significant US news and aren’t going to be as overtly biased as for-profit US news sources.
I hadn’t heard of CBC. I consume a lot of BBC content. Also maybe check out ABC (Australia). These public broadcasters produce some great journalism IMO.
The Conservative Party of Canada wants to shutdown the CBC, so it’s gotta be good.
