There is no news without bias. You just said you didn’t want a series of events listed as news. Anything extra is opinion. Even the selection of which facts to include is opinion.
You want either a book or a scientific journal. The well researched ones are boring. I promise, you don’t want them:
I don’t believe that. You can’t tell me there’s no difference in the amount of bias between Fox News and AP. Sure, we can’t reach some kind of theoretical 0.0 bias - even particle physics research is biased by assumptions. But at least it makes an honest attempt. Although the conclusions an article arrives at may be influenced by the author’s opinions, a journalist who is honestly trying to avoid bias would provide the reasoning, data and sources behind those opinions instead of simply stating them as fact. That gives me as a reader a chance to evaluate their merits.
You can’t tell me there’s no difference in the amount of bias between Fox News and AP
If you say, “I don’t want hatemongers, propaganda, and misinformation in this publication” that’s still a bias. You’re biased toward facts, inclusion, and accuracy. The choice of what stories to run, what sources to speak to or include, how articles are framed, etc. are all biases, conscious or not. There’s no way for a human to be dispassionate about anything. Even algorithms can’t be dispassionate because they carry the biases of the developers who write them, again, conscious or not. And even at news orgs where you have journalists keen on facts, the org itself is still run by some billionaire capitalists or multinational conglomerates who have intentions that may, overtly or not, drive editorial decisions.
The difference between Fox News and AP e.g. is whether or not they choose to platform mis- and dis-information, and whether they’re happy to tell lies to rile up a mob of angry bigots. Not biased vs. unbiased
There is no news without bias. You just said you didn’t want a series of events listed as news. Anything extra is opinion. Even the selection of which facts to include is opinion.
You want either a book or a scientific journal. The well researched ones are boring. I promise, you don’t want them:
https://academic.oup.com/ia
I don’t believe that. You can’t tell me there’s no difference in the amount of bias between Fox News and AP. Sure, we can’t reach some kind of theoretical 0.0 bias - even particle physics research is biased by assumptions. But at least it makes an honest attempt. Although the conclusions an article arrives at may be influenced by the author’s opinions, a journalist who is honestly trying to avoid bias would provide the reasoning, data and sources behind those opinions instead of simply stating them as fact. That gives me as a reader a chance to evaluate their merits.
If you say, “I don’t want hatemongers, propaganda, and misinformation in this publication” that’s still a bias. You’re biased toward facts, inclusion, and accuracy. The choice of what stories to run, what sources to speak to or include, how articles are framed, etc. are all biases, conscious or not. There’s no way for a human to be dispassionate about anything. Even algorithms can’t be dispassionate because they carry the biases of the developers who write them, again, conscious or not. And even at news orgs where you have journalists keen on facts, the org itself is still run by some billionaire capitalists or multinational conglomerates who have intentions that may, overtly or not, drive editorial decisions.
The difference between Fox News and AP e.g. is whether or not they choose to platform mis- and dis-information, and whether they’re happy to tell lies to rile up a mob of angry bigots. Not biased vs. unbiased