this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
62 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43336 readers
835 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both of them have truly neutral coverage, as in they report based on fact and reality and don't limit what they write in order to maintain some false sense of neutrality. Many news sites nowadays play down objective fact in order to maintain "neutrality" between one side of the political spectrum that believes in evidence and statistical fact and one that expressly does not.
This of course means that they're seen as being "anti-Trump" or "anti-Republican" but in actuality it's reality itself that is anti-Trump and they just report reality.
I would caution against putting so much faith in them both so strongly. They both favor American establishment liberal politics, which is transparent to many due to the fact that a lot of Americans agree with those politics, and that they appear very reasonable in comparison to whatever tf Republicans are up to on a given day.
It's not a bad thing that they tend to have a very dry and straightforward tone, but all outlets are biased, and it's important to remain critical at all times if you want to have an accurate picture of a current event.
Oh fully agree, of course. Every once in a while I see a neoliberal dipshit in their opinion columns making some abhorrent take, but generally they're signs significantly better than WaPo, NYT, CNN, Fox, CNBC, NBC, or CBS.
Some other good ones are Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the Associated Press, which of course each come with their own set of biases as well. Reuters is also fairly establishment liberal, Al Jazeera is useless for any news about the Middle East, and AP's opinion and analysis columns lean pretty conservative.
My comment was more in the sense that a "neutral" news site is one where they do not suppress facts because those facts favor a perceived "side" of a debate, which is becoming increasingly common as major political parties in the US and abroad start pushing outright falsehoods in their rhetoric.
Fair enough, that's actually close to the mix I have in my RSS reader, although I also would add the SCMP and teleSur as well
I'll take a look at those! I should really consider setting up an RSS feed for news coverage. Kinda been meaning to for a while, do you have an RSS reader that you prefer?
Liferea works well for me, but if you aren't using Linux then we can all long for Google Reader to come back lol. https://miniflux.app/ also looks good but takes some setting up it looks like.
Also be aware in advance that teleSur is Cuban/Venezuelan/Bolivian state media, but it sounds like you have decent enough media criticism skills to appreciate their point of view in comparison to the US-based outlets.
If you want as close as possible to true "neutrality" -- which is to mean verifiable fact-only reporting without commentary, you're going to need to go to the wire services directly -- the AP and Reuters are the largest.