[woodpanel]

While I echo your appraisal, they have a hard time not to come across as biased.

for instance:

- In the article you've linked, I'm sure there were better images of a conservative politician to choose from. Small thing, but not for professional journalists

- In the CumEx-article, what information do I gain, when they state that one of the perpetrator's lawyers is a famous face of the German pro-market party FDP - other than that it's good that they aren't part of the government? BTW this politician is known to be a lawyer for defendants in cases with a lot of press coverage. Is he guilty by association? Is thus his party, the people voting for them?

- Their focussing so much about the new right-wing populist party AfD

And what of course will always make the tinfoil hats spin:

- Being funded (among others) by George Soros

[wemdyjreichert]

Agreed. I understand everybody's got biases, and that many in media lean left. But doing pretty stuff like that, clearly intended to score a few cheap points, might turn many people off some truly high-quality content.

[davrosthedalek]

Agreed, but it goes even further, as it open up attack surface for the other side to discredit a story, and more importantly, the story teller, tainting all future stories. I understand that media writes for their readers, but I think it's a lesson one has to learn to actually affect change and convince the other side.

[pjc50]

There is no such thing as an unbiased press; the choice of what to report and what counts as "news" is inherently an opinion. It is also ridiculous to pretend that there isn't a substantial rightwing bias in a large number of media organisations, through their funding, ownership, and clickbait willingness to support manufactured "controversies" that harm real people.

A latest example: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/16/washington-post-lo... "Washington Post told lobbyist: Quit working for Saudis or stop writing for us". Admittedly that's in the "opinion" section, but the line between the two is very thin.

Given this the only thing you can do is find reporting that does a reasonable job of finding the answers, is consistent with your own values, and doesn't have to issue too many retractions for obviously stupid things they got suckered/biased into printing.

The choice between "holding power to account" versus "supporting the existing power structure and its prejudices" is both a key partisan divider and the only reason for press to claim a public interest defence in the first place.

[jfim]

> Given this the only thing you can do is find reporting that does a reasonable job of finding the answers, is consistent with your own values, and doesn't have to issue too many retractions for obviously stupid things they got suckered/biased into printing.

Alternatively, you can just read multiple news sources (ideally some from other countries as well) and compare them on their coverage of the same event. It's pretty enlightening to see what each source covers and what is their take on it.

[stronglikedan]

One of my go-to sites for this: https://www.allsides.com

[everybodyknows]

Coverage by foreign reporters adds another dimension: stories that embarrass both of the domestic political camps. A recent example would be British coverage of a Democratic legislator playing a cell phone game during Trump's address to Congress.