[mikekchar]

Reuters also has a history of bad reporting wrt Japan, at least as far as I'm concerned. They often translate things incorrectly and lead with conclusions based on that mistranslation. They are not the only ones on my "usually biased news" list, though. The Japan Times often picks up stories from the Yomiuri Shinbun, which are questionable in nature and translates them. These are then often picked up by the BBC.

What I find interesting, though, is that I don't think it is necessarily editing bias. I think it's actually the opposite: poor editing. What I've found is that when I've found stories that are mistranslated, or which contain seemingly intentionally misleading information, it's actually the same reporters. It is really only a handful of reporters that seem to be responsible for all of the crap news stories. The problem is that the editors seem to let the stories through (possibly because they are money makers???).

I'm not going to name names (of reporters) because my "analysis" is really adhoc and probably also biased. However, I encourage people to look at the by-lines and see if you find any patterns with types of stories and their authors. Don't assume that because it's reported by a reputable news service that the information is correct and unbiased.

[w1nt3rmu4e]

I've seen some truly awful journalism from Reuters. Articles that were so agenda driven as to almost laughably gloss over facts in order to present the desired narrative. (Laughable if reputations and money weren't on the line.)

I've called some of the offending journalists out on social media, which I encourage everyone to do.

[ako]

This is what happens if we all want to consume news for free, cost of gathering news also has to go to zero...

[triplesec]

Can you suggest some better-informed sources for us? I'd be very interested in more nuanced available sources

[AsyncAwait]

I have several major news apps on my phone and what I've found is that they're all reporting the same story, with very similar biases, within minutes of each other.

They all seem to drink from the same fountain.

You'd basically need to know what biases which outlets have to what stories and apply a filter accordingly, which can be extremely time consuming.

[xfitm3]

What about the AP? They seem to be rooted in factual reporting.

[AsyncAwait]

With the AP, it depends heavily on the thing they're covering. Often times they try to give every side and are indeed pretty good, but then I noticed that i.e. when it comes to Palestine, they often run headlines like "Palestinians dead in Gaza", which implies that some Palestinians just dropped dead, while in reality the headline should have been "Israel shoots Palestinians in Gaza" or similar.

They even did this when their own reporter, who was clearly marked PRESS was shot.

Here's the story as reported by the AP[1], notice the headline: "AP cameraman shot during Gaza protest", no mention of Israel and might even give the impression that Gazans shot him.

The vast majority of people only skim the headlines and AP knows this, so this is hardly an accident.

1 - https://www.apnews.com/65bd5c31690342b886ab5b8f72b37e53

[calvinbhai]

Serious question: How is it possible for AP reporter to know the nationality of the shooter? To be honest "AP cameraman shot during Gaza protest" is a more accurate and correct reporting by the reporter. Isn't it?

I have no bias in this conflict, I'm neither pro/anti palestenians/israelis, because I just cant wrap my head around it, and I refuse to believe what any major news media tries to feed people about this conflict.

If all of AP reports are this unbiased, then probably I'll have to start subscribing to them.