[_rrnv]

The problem with this approach is that you think you are getting a high level understanding but in fact you are not getting the understanding at all. You just get an opinion view based on what facts are reported and what facts are not.

[thorin]

A lot of news is based on opinion but I feel like the BBC try more than most to be impartial see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/imparti...

In fact some of the issues may be caused by being too impartial and giving weight to opinions which many feel should be ignored.

[_rrnv]

Indeed BBC is one of the better ones, however not great judging by the 90s standard ;)

[OJFord]

True, but for the kinds of thing I'm thinking of, and the level of understanding I want (at that point at least) I'm fine with that. (And as sibling says BBC is hardly awful in that regard.)

Take the protests/riots example, I had no awareness of it whatsoever (I don't follow the news any more, just HN really), but I heard enough to be confused and want some idea. The potential political bias in whether it's described as racist/terrorism/peaceful/righteous doesn't really matter to me, I just wanted 'oh, people are angry about things in the vicinity of X, and there are riot police out'.

If I wanted more, yeah the likes of the BBC aren't going to give me deep nourishing (to continue the junk food analogy) insight, and I'd seek out a broadsheet, an insightful blogger, books on the subject, etc. But I don't, so I can instead move on.