[0](https://spidr.today/)
Maybe they're applying a "not too far left or right" filter or a "popularity" filter in order to keep from having so many takes on a given story that it's overwhelming?
Pretty much all of them have some form of an “expressed commitment to political neutrality”, even Fox News did until fairly recently..
Of course, whether there is any substantive backing to the expressed commitment is a whole different question.
Sounds like you're looking for Reuters.
Expressing a commitment to political neutrality is a good move for a news source, because it costs no money and most people want their news sources to be neutral.
I think people want to be able to believe that their news sources are neutral. But I don't think they actually want their news sources to be neutral. That's the genius of what news has become: entertainment that justifies itself by allowing you to feel like you are doing your duty as a citizen by keeping up with current events.
I think that we also agree that people believe news sources are neutral when those news sources aren't neutral.
However, I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between "wanting your news sources to be neutral" and "wanting to be able to believe that your news sources are neutral". It's both pedantic and not borne out by any evidence. You're assuming motivations which simply aren't apparent.
Something apropos: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090
The paper you linked concludes that reasoning (when done correctly) works as intended regardless of the motives for reasoning. Given that reasoning (when done correctly) works regardless of the motives for reasoning, when people incorrectly reason that a news source is neutral, it indicates that reasoning was not done correctly, and that their motivations for reasoning aren't a constructive explanation for why they didn't reason correctly (i.e. your point is pedantic).
Further, the article you linked doesn't go so far as to disagree with my point--it doesn't make the mistake you're making, which is to assume that people can't want more than one thing. People can want to base their news source to be neutral AND people can want to feel good (i.e. not feel cognitive dissonance). Even if you were to somehow prove your not-evident point, it doesn't give you a basis to disagree with what I said, unless you can prove that people want to feel good to the exclusion of all other things they want from their news source. The article doesn't say that (i.e. your point is not borne out by evidence, even the evidence that you presented).
In evolutionary psychology, there is a distinction between proximate and ultimate causes. So, the proximate cause for pursuing sex is that orgasms are intensely pleasurable. But the ultimate cause is that pursuing sex leads to better reproductive outcomes, so we evolved the ability to orgasm and, thus, a motivation to pursue sex.
I think you are arguing in terms of proximate causes. Somebody desires a neutral news source so that they feel like they are accurately informed about what is going on in the world. I don't disagree with this. Most people genuinely want a neutral news source. But the weird thing is that they do not actually consume a neutral news source, even though it is trivially easy to figure out that your news source isn't neutral. All you have to do is read the other side's preferred news source.
To explain this seeming paradox, I am arguing in terms of ultimate causes. I think that this failure to reason accurately about the neutrality of news sources comes about, ultimately, because news consumption is not only about informing yourself, but also to a large extent about reaffirming the righteousness of your in-group. And I think that the appearance of neutrality is critical to enabling this self-deception to occur (because a person is much more convincing when they actually believe the position they're arguing for).
Thus my insistence on what you referred as pedantic: people don't actually want to consume a neutral news source, they want to believe that they consume a neutral news source. And not 'want' in the proximate sense that they know that they are deceiving themselves, but 'want' as a shorthand way to describe the ultimate cause for the prevalence of this self-deception.
1. I stated the proximate cause.
2. You disagreed, because you wanted to use "want" to describe ultimate rather than proximate causes.
3. Now you're agreeing with the proximate cause I stated and still insisting on your ultimate cause.
Do you see why this might be considered pedantic? You disagreed with what I said based on a meaning of the word "want", when in fact the way I was using the word "want" is correct?
The problem with ultimate causes is that because they're further away from the effect they're describing, so it's fairly difficult to establish a causal relationship.
Sex and reproduction have a well-developed constructive theory (evolution) around them--the causal relationship is believed to be true because evolution predicts it and also predicts a wide variety of things which we know to be true. But even so, evolution can be difficult to tie to phenomena--for example, it takes a fairly deep understanding of evolution to understand how evolution is compatible with homosexuality.
I can see how your ultimate cause might cause the phenomena we're discussing, but that simply means that the hypothesis is viable and worth testing--it doesn't yet indicate any evidence for your hypothesis. So again I'm still saying: you haven't provided any evidence for what you're saying. You may have evidence for your assertion, but you certainly haven't presented it.
Even if you have evidence for this: how is insisting on an ultimate cause a response to my original point? I said that "Expressing a commitment to political neutrality is a good move for a news source, because it costs no money and most people want their news sources to be neutral." The point being that we shouldn't trust that news sources are neutral or even trying to be neutral simply because they express a commitment to neutrality. Even if you're right, your jumping in to disagree with completely irrelevant information was, frankly, rude.
I'm not sure at this point whether I believe you intended to talk about ultimate versus proximal causes, or if you're just smart and managed to come up with that after the fact as a way to not have to admit you were wrong. Either way, I'm not going to respond to further comments on this thread.
> I think we're arguing past each other and I think that is my fault.
I'm sorry that I caused you to feel like I was being disingenuous (or however you would describe your emotions), but I was truly just trying to reconcile and understand our disagreement.
Also, the speaking about evolutionary forces in anthropomorphic terms like 'want', etc. is pretty common. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins at one point goes into a lengthy digression of why this is a useful way to talk about evolutionary processes and what exactly is and isn't meant by this manner of speaking. Realizing that me doing this was the primary source of our disagreement was what prompted my last comment.
But anyway, I agree that this conversation is getting long in the tooth.
Good day to you!
Imagine my shock to see the top post pointing to RealClearInvestigations analyzing the role of “PROMISE” discipline policies on Cruz’s ability to pull off his attack even after over 40 run-ins with the police.
Then again, the next half dozen link to articles about; a man allegedly attacking immigrants after yelling “Get out of my country”, Gary Cohen resignation, successful teacher strike gaining a 5% raise, Stormy Daniels sues Trump, and Kellyanne Conway violating ethics rules.
Of course it can be discussed what the political leanings of the outcomes actually are.
To put it another way: it's very possible to interpret fairness and impartiality in creative ways. And some NPR member stations make a habit of this.
Pre David Kelly they used to take their commitment more seriously.
For example, political views from someone who insists that global warming isn't happening are out-of-frame as being factually incorrect. That means a number of right-wing sites are gone, as the insistence that there is no global warming is more of a right-wing conceit than left-wing.
The alternative is not ignoring anyone, regardless of how lunatic they are, which means you admit known nutcases like whale.to and Natural News into your news diet, and that will give you a very warped view of the world.
People who have a restricted media diet are pretty easy to surprise just by relaying objective information nobody really disputes that their news sources didn't deem newsworthy.
Natural news et al may not be worth paying attention to but foreign propaganda outfits (e.g. Russia today) can sometimes be quite informative if read skeptically, even if only to add context.
Possibly also how sentiments like "facts have a liberal bias" or "liberals live in a fantasy" come about and ring true. The set of facts you use to judge who/what is 'in-frame' are essential to your understanding of the world. Someone else who treats those facts as optional ("Sure they don't believe in global warming, but they understand the issues with immigration") clearly has a poor understanding of "how the world works".
This is a point I first realised in 2004 immediately following the Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Indonesia and the Indian Ocean. As traditional media outlets struggled (some more successfully than others) to both present the current status and new developments, Wikipedia offered a digest of the best current state of knowledge, and, via its changelogs, what had been recently changed (generally: added, occasionally removed).
This is a pattern that's followed through, say, the 2010 Tohoku quake + tsunami + nuclear core meltdown, several long-running financial and business stories, Russian campaign interference, the Oroville Dam crisis, etc. Pretty much any story that runs more than 1-3 days and has complex elements.
I'm very well aware that Wikipedia is not perfect, is subject to influence, and is not itself a primary source. There is the odd outlet or journalist which exceeds Wikipedia (Brad Plumer, formerly of Vox and now of The New York Times, for example, has the best article I've seen, hands, down, on Oroville, though that was and remains a one-point-in-time effort, Wikipedia continues to update its article. Plumer, is, by the way, and absolutely excellent journalist, and as before, I am not his mother....).
Wikimedia's expansion into journalism is a fascinating development.
Plus they solicit ideas from readers in addition to content from journalists.