[jaynetics]

This is very true.

But perhaps the more important filtering is on quantity as opposed to neutrality? Perhaps filtering out a large amount of news, even with some bias, is the lesser evil, as compared to news outlets that depend on stirring the emotions of their readers every single day?

Wikinews used to be okay in this regard, but the German version I used has died down a bit, and the English one is even more centered on the Anglosphere than HN.

[balanced2]

Filtering out news with (probably more than) some bias seems dangerous in encouraging echo chambers.

I have been extremely happy to find

https://www.allsides.com/

Especially when it surfaces a topic with three articles from across the bias spectrum, it feels very rewarding being able to get a fuller picture.

[rickydroll]

Sometimes there aren't multiple sides, especially when it comes to science reporting. You have fact-based reporting, and then you have conspiracy theories.

How would you handle news where there is sufficient evidence to show one set of reporting is accurate and relatively unbiased, but another report is all made up and designed to inflame its audience?

[zvr]

That's an interesting approach. Unfortunately it's too US-centric (probably by design).

Does anyone know anything similar covering international news?

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I think you may be on to something here. When it comes to news, none is bad but so is too much. This would be true even if all the consumed news was politically neutral and completely objectively factual and accurate. But of course all news is biased, and much very deliberately so to the point of obscuring the truth of it. LLMs are not going to make this situation better.

I want to be aware of what's happening, but not to drown in it. How to achieve that is not only a good question but the right question.