I wonder why the FCC's fairness doctrine is rarely brought up in articles like this. They used to enforce certain standards whereby news being broadcast on the public airwaves had to be both relevant to the public interest, and presented without overt bias. Then, under Reagan, they just stopped doing that, and to me that's when an already imperfect news industry started to really go off the rails.
It sounds hopelessly naive in 2021, when suggesting that the press can even attempt to be objective marks you as a rube. Yet it seems like enforcing some expectation of fairness would be an improvement over having none at all. It may not be possible to actually be objective, but in the same way that we can't stop people from killing or robbing each other, we still insist on asking them very nicely not to, and holding them to account when we catch them at it. Most would say it's better to have some pretense of civilization than to just give up trying: why have we given up trying?
I'd even suggest that removing the standard of fairness allowed a different set of ethics to fill the vacuum: good journalism is attention-grabbing and serves the ideological base that forms your revenue stream. You could see this happening with the cable news explosion in the 80s, but it went supernova with the internet, and the changing economics of the post-Facebook era.
Clearly, the FCC can't control the global internet, and broadcast television and radio is not much of a factor anymore. So, any modern equivalent to the fairness doctrine would likely have to come from aggregators like Facebook, Google, Reddit, etc., which may seem impossible because it's at odds with their business model. But, I'm hopeful because there is a history of industries adopting their own standards before they have more restrictive ones imposed on them by regulation.
I would be in favor of reclaiming some words like "News" with regulatory controls. Just like the FDA doesn't allow someone to label their product as "Organic" without meeting certain standards, I would argue that we should enforce some basic standards in order to label yourself as "News" or "Media Organization." It would be a slippery slope to navigate with the first amendment and the internet but there is a large group of citizens that will believe anything if it was on TV and came from the "News."
There's a thing that happened with the Canada subreddit. It used to be kind of an interesting sub where youd get neat Canada-wide local stories (mostly Ontario) that were genrally pleasant. It was a nice place to visit after being inundated with American politics. Then, sometime in the early 10s and it gradually became very partisan and political. Which, to clarify, means it got substantially worse.
It, like the comment sections on Canadian news websites, leaned heavily to the right. So a group got together and made alt Canada subreddit that leaned heavily left called OnGuardForThee.
Originally, I thought it would be helpful to compare the two subs to get something closer to the middle but instead all that happened was I got twice as much screaming hot garbage.
I unsubbed from both and now individually sub to all the Canadian town I can find. It's better now. There's so much less anger.
I am starting to think that it isn't really the "news" but the commentary. Most sites will cover many of the same events. There will be different focuses but a large percentage of the information is the same.
But I recently visited my senior citizen parents and got some exposure to Fox News. During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks. One example was trying to stir up a controversy over not covid testing people crossing the board illegally. Another was a rich part of Atlanta trying to break away from Atlanta and they were blaming it all on defund the police and black lives matter.
> During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks.
Yep. We’re all addicted to “rage-ahol” [1], but it gets eyeballs which means they can charge more for ads.
What’s worse IMHO is that we consume so much “news” that we can do nothing about [2], and I believe that contributes to people feeling quite helpless, and learning that all they can do is nothing.
I live in one of the (upper?) middle class parts of Atlanta and I really hope they don't do that. Crime rates are up in a bad way, and the city can be pretty mismanaged, but taking your ball and going home isn't a real option. It's just going to hurt the city that will still be right next door, and that has your sports (some of it, Braves are gone), museums and culture, restaurants, a lot of work spaces and shopping, etc. You can't just wall it off and you do take part in it, so stay, keep paying your share, and fight to make it better. It'll be worse than when people outside the perimeter vote down taxes to cover transportation infrastructure and refuse mass transit, but are the ones commuting into and through town increasing the burden on the transit system. We're all in this together, so let's try to work together to improve it.
Something else to keep in mind is that liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy. We have at least four major cultures in the USA - some scholars put it as high as eleven - and they each have differing core values.
This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise.
I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.
> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue."
I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
(Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.)
I think the words "well-reasoned opinion" describe it well: try to see what part of your opinion is fact, which experts you trusted for that, and what part is morality and ethics.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues:
They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across.
In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.
I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious and important points of context, but the article doesn't even broach them.
(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])
Worse, this seems to be increasingly prevalent in the academy as well. Indeed, the study cited in the article (from University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative) also doesn't mention these points of context and the paper is pretty overtly propagandist.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things
Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc.
But once you realize that, you realize it can apply to, e.g. WaPo, which many Republicans say is very left-biased, while many Democrats say it's neutral.
I think an amusing non-partisan example of how story selection biases viewpoints is the so-called "Summer of the Shark"[0] where for whatever reason shark attacks became a part of the summer's zeitgeist and got extensively covered. Meanwhile, shark attacks weren't at any particularly elevated level, contrary to what many people ended up believing.
Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this.
It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after they've treated both sides.
It also doesn't fall neatly into any liberal/conservative divide. It tends to be socially progressive yet only interested in solutions that can be practically implemented, pro-free market but deeply concerned about externalities and the environment, pro-democracy but with hard-headed realpolitik.
Plus probably half of what each weekly issue covers is news you won't find in any other American publication, at least -- it's a global publication and one of the best ways to simply learn about the entire world's political and economic news.
"They dont talk about or even cover the same things" - this is the number one fake news tactic in play. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's a 2x2 matrix -
If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
They'll only report on the same things when those common things are important enough / loud enough to where they can't ignore it, or when they're able to put their own political interpretation on it when telling the viewer what to think.
I cannot recommend the show and podcast 'Breaking Points', by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball enough. They are top notch journalists who formerly hosted a daily news show called 'Rising' on The Hill, but left recently in order to be more independent and free of advertiser influence (censorship).
While they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They cut through much of the partisan, mainstream BS - and get to the heart of many issues, all while debating ea. other in a civilized way.
If you like podcasts, try Left, Right & Center by KCRW. Their sister show All the Presidents' Lawyers is pretty good too, but what I like about LR&C is that it really does show multiple sides without a constant yelling fest. Sure there are the occasional "you don't really believe that do you?" moments, but it's largely civil.
I tried this for a while and then gave up and read no news whatsoever. For important issues, I’ll hear about it from friends and family in person. In the few situations where I wanted to learn more, it was such a slog to search and filter through garbage to find even the most simple facts (eg, what’s contained in recent us covid stimulus package) it’s just reinforced my decision that putting in routine work just to keep up on events isn’t worth it.
I highly recommend experimenting with turning off the news completely for a time. You quickly find that the vast majority of "Breaking News!" that gets shoveled out simply isn't that important for most people, and is there mainly to feed a news addiction.
Alternatively, use the Internet Archives to read news from this date from 2-5 few years ago. You'll probably find that most aren't worth reading, which gives you a good sense of how important the news you read today will seem in just a few years.
I read all those but consider them fairly partisan, at this point, e.g. they have to satisfy their clientele. I add Reuters and a few others like that to the mix but even that is difficult. Sometimes you have to search within the website to find coverage for specific stories and it's buried deeper down.
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
IMO Comparing viewpoints isn’t as important as simply popping you out of the bubble. The key is to distrust the media more than you distrust the “other side”.
I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.
I tried this, too and realized similar things. I then decided that I do not really care (at least not that much) about understanding which way each source wants to spin things. I instead want information about the world to form my own opinions.
I started reading international news. That is, focus on publications outside country X when reading about X.
Reports from Sweden, Korea, Russia and UK (thanks google translate!) translated into English, awkward wording and all, plus a minimal dose of CNN and Fox works better for me than a mix of American media. Just my 2c.
I might even wrap it up as a convenient page or app.
Right. Because of these news sources are BUSINESSES. Their job is to manage their own "image" to keep people around for the advertisers. Like it or not (me, not) this is a much easier way to grok what's going on with them. Their priority is viewers -- mostly retaining them. So you keep with the general idea that "you should tell the truth" by choosing which truths to tell, and then perhaps "gambling" by once in a while doing something outrageous that will excite the base.
I would suggest reading some sources outside the US. Specifically, I would recommend the Economist. While the Economist has a very distinct view, it does provide a little higher level, distanced view of US and world politics.
It has highlighted to me some biases from some of the sources I follow on a day by day basis (NYT, Washington Post).
Bonus points for the Economist, because you also get coverage and analysis of events across the world many of which get almost 0 coverage in US press.
just watch C-SPAN and cut out the crap; then compare coverage of the same speech or event or whatever. All of the media will pick out single words from an hours-long talk and invent their own context, ignoring the rest of the hour
Our tech ingests articles from different publishers, groups them into topics based on the story they are covering, then analyze and score them based on how informative they are and present curated articles as best perspectives from left/right/center.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things,
This is a big issue. But at the same time - it's not clear to me what the solution when every side is pushing hype rather than news. How do you publish an "opposing take" on something the other side is publishing that isn't real in the first place? It's not ideal to even acknowledge lies.
I identify pretty closely with one side. But certainly there are Outrage Machines on both sides, a network of media and personalities hyping up the latest calumny that the other side committed, for views and clicks. These machines can't slow down -- even if the other side has been quiet lately, all those people need something to do and talk about. They'll find something.
Have you considered not “identifying”? Just choose your opinions on issues a la carte. Or even don’t have an opinion on a bunch of issues.
I started doing that and now I’m kind of politically homeless but oh well. I do notice that I can talk to either side now which is cool and no one automatically puts up their defenses.
One thing a lot of people miss is that there is a profit motive here. You can make money, sometimes a lot of money, by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant. You can find examples of people doing this on all sides, especially at the extremes where outrage and other powerful negative emotions can most easily be stirred up.
All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorship. Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much. What the outrage is about is money. While you can still speak elsewhere or on your own web site, being kicked off the majors makes it hard to monetize that speech.
Deplatforming really knocked the wind out of a burgeoning outrage-for-profit industry that had some influencers making millions by being controversy and outrage trolls on social media.
I think this is missing the darker point, which is that the main stream media along with the political parties that support them, are the the echo chamber. It’s not that we are caught in an echo chamber, rather it’s the information from mass media corporations that has created the echo chamber. If anything, to break out so to speak, is perhaps as easy as simply turning off all news, and paying more attention directly to what politicians are saying.
An underrated way to get out of your echo chamber is to actually talk to people in person. I lean fairly conservative, while my wife and her friends are very liberal. Whenever we happen to talk about political topics, most of the time we end up understanding where each other are coming from, even if we still don't agree.
TBH I am over political news and over biased sites on both spectrums. Too much information and too much making hay. Soo much of it isn't news - and it hamstrings any politicians able to talk to the other side when they report on the minutiae.
To break free of the sensationalized partisan news, I've switched to reading The New Paper's [0] Monday-Friday daily email + Wikipedia Current Events [1] (delivered daily via email [2]) + HN (I try to check just once a day).
I've found that when the news is less "exciting," I'm a lot less inclined to read it. I still know enough to participate in most conversations, and if something seems really important, I'll read more in other outlets. I still forget most of the news the next day (just like I did before).
Overall I feel equally informed and less stressed out and better able to focus on the things in my life that have an impact.
The elephant in the room is that this sort of enlightened centrism, while it sounds noble, rests on several ill-formed assumptions.
The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
The third assumption is that being at the center or having this detachment from either side is a political position in and of itself. I think it’s too simplistic to say you’ll be the net sum of whatever each side puts out, but you’re taking a position all the same.
You’re not obligated to give equal credence to the opposing side on a number of issues. At best it will make you more detached from politics over time, splitting hairs over policy stances at the voting booth instead of more impactful grassroots political action.
I want to given an outside perspective as somebody living in a full opposite of your binary political system. I'm from the Netherlands, where we have too many political parties, so many it's becoming a joke in itself.
The contrast is stark compared to the US because in our political system, a coalition has to be formed after each election to form a majority.
This means building consensus and thinking multi-partisan is the default. This pretty much rules out the "total war" approach on political opponents as it means shooting yourself in the foot. You may need that other party to form a majority.
Therefore, centrism in the broadest sense, which I see as the spectrum center-left, center, center-right...is the heart of the matter here, instead of some barren wasteland. Over 90% of the population votes within that relatively narrow bandwidth, therefore this is the negotiation space.
And negotiate we will. Whilst we too have pockets of extreme left and right getting disproportionate media attention, reality on the ground (voting and policy) is basically centrists all around, with minor tweaks to the left and right.
The above system isn't perfect, above all it does lead to slow progress at best, as policy is watered down due to the nature of coalitions, but let's not stray too far off topic.
The US political system indeed seems designed to destroy or at least "win" from the other party, and basically...anything goes.
Without any choice, centrism is not represented, at least not in media. But that doesn't mean centrism does not exist. I would expect in any developed nation the majority of the population to be in the center or fairly close to it, the so-called silent majority.
The thing I find most baffling is how besides polarization between the left and right reaching new heights, many of you seem so indoctrinated into this us versus them dogma that many if not most comments below heavily criticize or even attack centrism.
You should take some time to think about that position. The point of the article was to break out of your bubble, yet you double down. When you reject both the opposing party as well as centrism, you basically reject some 50-70% of the typical population. This besides the ridiculous notion of reducing something as complex as a human being to "friend" or "enemy".
I didn't know about https://www.theflipside.io/latest-issue which compares news coverage of left and right leaning sources. Anyone know more sites like that they can recommend?
If you skip the opinion section, reporting from business news operations like Reuters or Bloomberg is basically as objective as it gets while still not being a plain recitation of facts.
If you’re thinking of things in terms Republicans vs Democrats, or left vs right, you are already behind the 8-ball. The entire framing of this article is counterproductive to clear thinking.
If you really want to break out of your political echo chamber, you have to first decide how you want the world to be, and why, and then look for people and orgs who can help make it that way. You have to start with facts and policy and then find partners to work with, and politicians who will be open to your preferences. This is how the pros approach governing, including the names you read in the paper every day.
Partisan politics is the tool that powerful people wield to get what they want; it’s not a core part of their identity. If you’re not approaching politics with the same pragmatic skepticism, you are the one getting used by them.
> Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides, you don’t understand the issue.
Russ Roberts, host of the podcast Econ Talk, is really good at this. Independent of the guests political background, he does a good job of offering debate using a charitable interpretation of other people's arguments (even ones he doesn't disagree with). He also is pretty good at trying to find common ground with people he disagrees with, and when he realizes he's made a statement that would demonstrate his bias, he's pretty quick to call out his own bias.
In my opinion if you want to break out of echo chambers, you'd better read books, not news. I don't mean books written on occasion by the same people who write opinion columns and blog posts - rather great books that go deeper in how things work.
Among the modern writings, Arendt's Human Condition was a real eye opener for me. I hope to find more modern book of such quality of thought, but older ones by classic philosophers don't lose their relevance either.
[+] [-] karaterobot|4 years ago|reply
It sounds hopelessly naive in 2021, when suggesting that the press can even attempt to be objective marks you as a rube. Yet it seems like enforcing some expectation of fairness would be an improvement over having none at all. It may not be possible to actually be objective, but in the same way that we can't stop people from killing or robbing each other, we still insist on asking them very nicely not to, and holding them to account when we catch them at it. Most would say it's better to have some pretense of civilization than to just give up trying: why have we given up trying?
I'd even suggest that removing the standard of fairness allowed a different set of ethics to fill the vacuum: good journalism is attention-grabbing and serves the ideological base that forms your revenue stream. You could see this happening with the cable news explosion in the 80s, but it went supernova with the internet, and the changing economics of the post-Facebook era.
Clearly, the FCC can't control the global internet, and broadcast television and radio is not much of a factor anymore. So, any modern equivalent to the fairness doctrine would likely have to come from aggregators like Facebook, Google, Reddit, etc., which may seem impossible because it's at odds with their business model. But, I'm hopeful because there is a history of industries adopting their own standards before they have more restrictive ones imposed on them by regulation.
[+] [-] mmcconnell1618|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fartcannon|4 years ago|reply
It, like the comment sections on Canadian news websites, leaned heavily to the right. So a group got together and made alt Canada subreddit that leaned heavily left called OnGuardForThee.
Originally, I thought it would be helpful to compare the two subs to get something closer to the middle but instead all that happened was I got twice as much screaming hot garbage.
I unsubbed from both and now individually sub to all the Canadian town I can find. It's better now. There's so much less anger.
[+] [-] jccalhoun|4 years ago|reply
But I recently visited my senior citizen parents and got some exposure to Fox News. During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks. One example was trying to stir up a controversy over not covid testing people crossing the board illegally. Another was a rich part of Atlanta trying to break away from Atlanta and they were blaming it all on defund the police and black lives matter.
[+] [-] jt2190|4 years ago|reply
Yep. We’re all addicted to “rage-ahol” [1], but it gets eyeballs which means they can charge more for ads.
What’s worse IMHO is that we consume so much “news” that we can do nothing about [2], and I believe that contributes to people feeling quite helpless, and learning that all they can do is nothing.
[1] Homer Simpson https://youtu.be/JKRn2nEw7rY
[2] Fires, car chases, etc. And even if there is, indirectly, something we could do, the reporting never mentions it.
[+] [-] robmccoll|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgsimp|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bovermyer|4 years ago|reply
This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise.
I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.
[+] [-] munificent|4 years ago|reply
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-...
[+] [-] prof-dr-ir|4 years ago|reply
I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
(Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.)
I think the words "well-reasoned opinion" describe it well: try to see what part of your opinion is fact, which experts you trusted for that, and what part is morality and ethics.
[+] [-] vsskanth|4 years ago|reply
They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across.
In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.
[+] [-] throwaway894345|4 years ago|reply
(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])
Worse, this seems to be increasingly prevalent in the academy as well. Indeed, the study cited in the article (from University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative) also doesn't mention these points of context and the paper is pretty overtly propagandist.
[0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/movie-characters-muslim-riz-a...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
[2]: http://decentfilms.com/articles/hollywood-religion-problem
[+] [-] losvedir|4 years ago|reply
Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc.
But once you realize that, you realize it can apply to, e.g. WaPo, which many Republicans say is very left-biased, while many Democrats say it's neutral.
I think an amusing non-partisan example of how story selection biases viewpoints is the so-called "Summer of the Shark"[0] where for whatever reason shark attacks became a part of the summer's zeitgeist and got extensively covered. Meanwhile, shark attacks weren't at any particularly elevated level, contrary to what many people ended up believing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
[+] [-] crazygringo|4 years ago|reply
Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this.
It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after they've treated both sides.
It also doesn't fall neatly into any liberal/conservative divide. It tends to be socially progressive yet only interested in solutions that can be practically implemented, pro-free market but deeply concerned about externalities and the environment, pro-democracy but with hard-headed realpolitik.
Plus probably half of what each weekly issue covers is news you won't find in any other American publication, at least -- it's a global publication and one of the best ways to simply learn about the entire world's political and economic news.
[+] [-] Grim-444|4 years ago|reply
If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
They'll only report on the same things when those common things are important enough / loud enough to where they can't ignore it, or when they're able to put their own political interpretation on it when telling the viewer what to think.
[+] [-] dfsegoat|4 years ago|reply
While they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They cut through much of the partisan, mainstream BS - and get to the heart of many issues, all while debating ea. other in a civilized way.
https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-k...
It is INCREDIBLY refreshing, if you've fallen into the rut of mainstream internet or tv news.
[+] [-] 3pt14159|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthegreek|4 years ago|reply
https://www.readtangle.com/
[+] [-] prepend|4 years ago|reply
Rage makes more ad money than facts.
[+] [-] bnralt|4 years ago|reply
Alternatively, use the Internet Archives to read news from this date from 2-5 few years ago. You'll probably find that most aren't worth reading, which gives you a good sense of how important the news you read today will seem in just a few years.
[+] [-] zwieback|4 years ago|reply
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
[+] [-] mrfusion|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dev_by_day|4 years ago|reply
I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.
[+] [-] ptero|4 years ago|reply
I started reading international news. That is, focus on publications outside country X when reading about X.
Reports from Sweden, Korea, Russia and UK (thanks google translate!) translated into English, awkward wording and all, plus a minimal dose of CNN and Fox works better for me than a mix of American media. Just my 2c.
I might even wrap it up as a convenient page or app.
[+] [-] duxup|4 years ago|reply
Is it some fake news site, or some radio personality's take? Or is it some twitter spat / spam?
I don't think 'the other side' is all that simple to cover / has an obvious quantity to include with every news article.
[+] [-] jrm4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mesh|4 years ago|reply
It has highlighted to me some biases from some of the sources I follow on a day by day basis (NYT, Washington Post).
Bonus points for the Economist, because you also get coverage and analysis of events across the world many of which get almost 0 coverage in US press.
[+] [-] liveoneggs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajoy|4 years ago|reply
Our tech ingests articles from different publishers, groups them into topics based on the story they are covering, then analyze and score them based on how informative they are and present curated articles as best perspectives from left/right/center.
All of this automated and running continuously on our website : https://www.thefactual.com/news and also in our app : iOS (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-factual/id1537259360) and Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=group.thefactu...)
Do check us out.
[+] [-] lostapathy|4 years ago|reply
This is a big issue. But at the same time - it's not clear to me what the solution when every side is pushing hype rather than news. How do you publish an "opposing take" on something the other side is publishing that isn't real in the first place? It's not ideal to even acknowledge lies.
[+] [-] hliyan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProjectArcturis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|4 years ago|reply
I started doing that and now I’m kind of politically homeless but oh well. I do notice that I can talk to either side now which is cool and no one automatically puts up their defenses.
[+] [-] api|4 years ago|reply
All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorship. Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much. What the outrage is about is money. While you can still speak elsewhere or on your own web site, being kicked off the majors makes it hard to monetize that speech.
Deplatforming really knocked the wind out of a burgeoning outrage-for-profit industry that had some influencers making millions by being controversy and outrage trolls on social media.
[+] [-] underseacables|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn8788|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boringg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickscoleman|4 years ago|reply
I've found that when the news is less "exciting," I'm a lot less inclined to read it. I still know enough to participate in most conversations, and if something seems really important, I'll read more in other outlets. I still forget most of the news the next day (just like I did before).
Overall I feel equally informed and less stressed out and better able to focus on the things in my life that have an impact.
[0] https://thenewpaper.co/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events [2] https://dev.to/kiwicopple/daily-email-of-wikipedia-s-current...
[+] [-] fancyfish|4 years ago|reply
The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
The third assumption is that being at the center or having this detachment from either side is a political position in and of itself. I think it’s too simplistic to say you’ll be the net sum of whatever each side puts out, but you’re taking a position all the same.
You’re not obligated to give equal credence to the opposing side on a number of issues. At best it will make you more detached from politics over time, splitting hairs over policy stances at the voting booth instead of more impactful grassroots political action.
[+] [-] fleddr|4 years ago|reply
The contrast is stark compared to the US because in our political system, a coalition has to be formed after each election to form a majority.
This means building consensus and thinking multi-partisan is the default. This pretty much rules out the "total war" approach on political opponents as it means shooting yourself in the foot. You may need that other party to form a majority.
Therefore, centrism in the broadest sense, which I see as the spectrum center-left, center, center-right...is the heart of the matter here, instead of some barren wasteland. Over 90% of the population votes within that relatively narrow bandwidth, therefore this is the negotiation space.
And negotiate we will. Whilst we too have pockets of extreme left and right getting disproportionate media attention, reality on the ground (voting and policy) is basically centrists all around, with minor tweaks to the left and right.
The above system isn't perfect, above all it does lead to slow progress at best, as policy is watered down due to the nature of coalitions, but let's not stray too far off topic.
The US political system indeed seems designed to destroy or at least "win" from the other party, and basically...anything goes.
Without any choice, centrism is not represented, at least not in media. But that doesn't mean centrism does not exist. I would expect in any developed nation the majority of the population to be in the center or fairly close to it, the so-called silent majority.
The thing I find most baffling is how besides polarization between the left and right reaching new heights, many of you seem so indoctrinated into this us versus them dogma that many if not most comments below heavily criticize or even attack centrism.
You should take some time to think about that position. The point of the article was to break out of your bubble, yet you double down. When you reject both the opposing party as well as centrism, you basically reject some 50-70% of the typical population. This besides the ridiculous notion of reducing something as complex as a human being to "friend" or "enemy".
Way to miss the point.
[+] [-] barbazoo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr-wendel|4 years ago|reply
I've picked up some great regular reads from that list.
[+] [-] gnicholas|4 years ago|reply
http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
[+] [-] frakkingcylons|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
And then you read how some Supreme Court justices make a decision and you’re wondering if they are even reading the same document
[+] [-] snowwrestler|4 years ago|reply
If you really want to break out of your political echo chamber, you have to first decide how you want the world to be, and why, and then look for people and orgs who can help make it that way. You have to start with facts and policy and then find partners to work with, and politicians who will be open to your preferences. This is how the pros approach governing, including the names you read in the paper every day.
Partisan politics is the tool that powerful people wield to get what they want; it’s not a core part of their identity. If you’re not approaching politics with the same pragmatic skepticism, you are the one getting used by them.
[+] [-] jkingsbery|4 years ago|reply
Russ Roberts, host of the podcast Econ Talk, is really good at this. Independent of the guests political background, he does a good job of offering debate using a charitable interpretation of other people's arguments (even ones he doesn't disagree with). He also is pretty good at trying to find common ground with people he disagrees with, and when he realizes he's made a statement that would demonstrate his bias, he's pretty quick to call out his own bias.
[+] [-] oytis|4 years ago|reply
Among the modern writings, Arendt's Human Condition was a real eye opener for me. I hope to find more modern book of such quality of thought, but older ones by classic philosophers don't lose their relevance either.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] oarabbus_|4 years ago|reply
I have full access to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. I go to Wired to read about tech, not some worse version of a take made in WaPo or WSJ.