[ThalesX]

> if you also want news to include "to what effect"

I don't. I want to be able to draw my own conclusion as to the effect of what happened might be.

> News cannot be free from a political lens if "why" and "to what effect" are considered, and probably can't be free from some element of a political lens even if just sticking to "what".

I have no interest in the "why" and "to what effect". I have an interest into "what" so that I can draw my own conclusions.

Though thank you for your thoughts, it helps me understand the people calling for political sides better.

[HelloMcFly]

> I don't. I want to be able to draw my own conclusion as to the effect of what happened might be.

That's fair BUT do you see how this is a decision that a) won't always have a clear line of demarcation and b) reflects an internal mental model of news that likely isn't universal?

For example: let's say someone reads a news article that titled "Trump Won't Rule out Military Intervention in Greenland" (god help us, a real story). Maybe you get all the "what" you need from the headline. I would argue though that omitting contextual information about "Why does he want Greenland?" is irresponsible and bad journalism. Many others might argue that in a duty to inform readers, they should collect statements from people who understand international relations to discuss implications of such a stance.

Another example: insurance rates are rising for coastal properties in Florida. That's the "what", but there is no honest, legitimate exploration of the topic if the journalist doesn't explore "why", because the "why" of this story if also a "what" of the many contributing factors. Since that "what" will necessarily include climate-related topics, it is now considered "political" by many. And in this instance, exploring "what effect" this is likely to have on homeowners, renters, and businesses seems a core element of the phenomenon.

[ThalesX]

> That's fair BUT do you see how this is a decision that a) won't always have a clear line of demarcation and b) reflects an internal mental model of news that likely isn't universal?

a) I think there's a clear line of demarcation to the "what".

b) I can see how this isn't a universal mental model, I just fail to see why the "why" makes for a better one.

> irresponsible and bad journalism

I honestly don't see how left / center / right fixes this. If there's no consensus between tens / hundreds (and I'm in a small country) sources on the actual thing that lead up to the what, I don't see why that should be included. Else the news would just be (for example, not political affirmation) "Trump Won't Rule out Military Intervention in Greenland[...] as loss of key trans-atlantic partners considered less valuable than securing arctic trade route".

> Another example: insurance rates are rising for coastal properties in Florida. That's the "what", but there is no honest, legitimate exploration of the topic if the journalist doesn't explore "why", because the "why" of this story if also a "what" of the many contributing factors. Since that "what" will necessarily include climate-related topics, it is now considered "political" by many. And in this instance, exploring "what effect" this is likely to have on homeowners, renters, and businesses seems a core element of the phenomenon

Honestly it's the same thing, if 80% of covered news sources point out to a why as climate change, sure. If only the left (or right, or center) ones do and they're not a solid majority. I don't particulary care. I care more about the "what".

Again, this might tie into the mental model more than anything but the whole left / center / right divide seems political and high noise to signal ratio to me.

[HelloMcFly]

Fair reply, and reasonable people can disagree. But there is just one thing I wanted to reply to:

>> irresponsible and bad journalism > I honestly don't see how left / center / right fixes this.

Well, it doesn't. Those are labels we have affixed to things, because those are the lenses through which society sees "debated topics." But those lenses are applied to real things, that are really happening.

That you discount climate change because right-wing publications don't engage with it - despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence - then you've just made yourself more susceptible to propaganda, not less. The omission of information is just as political as the inclusion of it.