[Bucephalus355]

lol “perspective of the ML developer” maybe

Something like this can be great, but feel a hand curation would probably be better served. Here’s a quick one, read Vox and then Breitbart. It’s an intellectual rollercoaster ride.

[pigscantfly]

This is a trope I see commonly repeated but have a difficult time understanding. In what way does (in this case, for instance) an algorithm predicting political bias come to reflect the political biases of the person implementing the mathematical operations behind some gradient descent scheme more so than whoever provided the labels of whatever data it's ultimately trained on?

[blazespin]

I agree, this is the best approach by far. You should read fox news and cnn to get a balanced perspective. Though few minds can handle the cognitive dissonance, sadly.

[shaki-dora]

That works about as well as spending a day in fire, followed by a day submerged in freezing water as a strategy for temperature regulation...

If you absolutely must approach this with a false-equivalence (or "fake-balance") mindset, the WSJ and NYT are two much better sources, and have a better claim of being equidistant from something approaching a political center (CNN, at least when I used to watch it, was nowhere near as insane as FOX at the time).

I you don't have much time, just read the NYT. It's the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, and, despite repeat assertion to the opposite, they are better today than they have ever been.

[Angostura]

Isn't this rather like suggesting you read anti-vax and vaccination proponents or climate scientists and climate change deniers in order to get a 'balanced' perspective?

[dabbledash]

It’s worse than that.

While you’re right that they aren’t equidistant from the political center, the bigger issue is that they’re both incredibly dumb.