pull down to refresh

So they include bias distribution charts with each story. Also they don't have a paywall, don't do advertising on the site, and have voices from all over the spectrum. Some really damn good journalists on that site.
If you're looking for an unbiased news homepage and don't have a subscription somewhere, or are tired of Yahoo News et al, you should check them out.

www.SAN.com

Fair and balanced. Reminds me of something. I'm curious how accurate they are in bias definition. I've seen similar things before. The issue for me is you are trusting someone else to do what you should learn to do yourself. No substitute for critical thinking. You can't outsource it without a cost. If you pay attention after a while you start seeing the bias in news. But I think all of us are probably fooled sometimes.
Thanks for sharing. Honestly I think we over value news coverage. We over value recency and quick takes over thoughtful reflection. Most news isnt important at all to your life. I'm a fan of tuning out.
reply
We'll always trust an institution with regards to global news because we're not in Ukraine, China, Africa, or Russia. We don't speak the language. We don't have networks. We don't collect facts, or have data sources to quote. Someone has to report actual news to the ledger. Then layer 2 is someone taking all this raw data and interpreting it into a digestible story. Critical thinking on our part usually comes after layer 2. And if the base layer is distorted, all information that follows is distorted; layer 2 doesn't even have an opportunity to be undistorted. Same is true of history, money, and home building. America, in my observation, doesn't have a corrupt layer 1 regarding news reporting, but many other countries do. Our issue is the faux layer 2 products that have separated themselves from layer 1 information.
reply
Interesting idea…
reply
deleted by author
reply