|
|
|
|
|
|
by teamonkey
490 days ago
|
|
|
It's it's political by nature, and biased because it's written by humans, but I think the brevity of the format helps keep things to the point. Really, you have to do the pre-social-media trick of comparing multiple sources, adjusting for known biases, and synthesising a world view. I've always rated the Financial Times for world news. It has a high-capital bias of course, but because its goal is to help investors make investment decisions it is incentivised to report things accurately rather than spin. Also old media international news reporting is usually leagues better than domestic reporting. The BBC's reporting of UK politics is pretty weak, but it's international reporting is very high-quality. I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera to report on things the Qatari royal family have a stake in, but their remit is (or was) to inform said royal family accurately about world affairs. On that note, I've seen plenty of adverts for Ground News, which supposedly lets you compare the bias of various sources for the same story. I've not tried it. |
|
|
I am looking for more authentic/humane writing style. There is a lot of info to keep informed, so the way in which things are expressed is important to me. Even outside the news it's hard to find good writing.
I think sites like ground.news just make things worst. The issue is not if something is left or right. It should be whether it is correct and in which setting. They are exploiting peoples' biases to make money.