Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwr | Hacker News Reader

Every source of information will be biased, and you have to take that into account by being critical.

I found that the best source for me is The Economist: once per week, written by smart people, with good summaries of anything that is important. Delivered digitally (with an excellent audio version, too).

It is "biased" in the sense that the editors hold a set of opinions and you have to be aware of it. I do not agree with all of their opinions, but I am aware of them. The news useful even if you disagree with their interpretation or recommendations.

Surprisingly, it is the only intelligent and non-sensational news source that I have found.

View on HN

> "Every source of information will be biased, and you have to take that into account by being critical."

A thousand times this. Bias is everywhere. I think people who say they're looking for an 'unbiased' source of information are really looking for a source of information they can just blindly consume without doing any pesky thinking. And if you're blindly consuming information without thinking, you're allowing someone else to think for you.

I really like their Audio edition: it's a full version of the paper voiced by pro actors.

I don't understand why this isn't more common. I'm already spending 8-hours a day at work, reading stuff or parsing information in some ways. I have found that I have no mental capacity left to read a full newspaper on top of that.

Listening to a podcast while commuting is way less exhausting (to me at least).

I went from The Economist to Foreign Affairs few years ago when Eco became unbearably filled with an agenda. You might want to check FA out.

Can you describe their agenda, or point to a description of it?

It's conspicuously centrist and pro-global-capitalism (see: articles essentially saying "human lives on earth has definitely gotten better under capitalism" (and not explicitly saying "world-average QoL is the correct metric by which to measure progress", nor addressing counterfactual hypotheses), + anti-trump + pretty skeptical of brexit. These are sort of acceptable, manageable biases to my eye: is there more I'm missing?

The Economist is somehow accused to have a bias in every direction. Some would call it "Ecommunist"pushing a far-left agenda, others decrying a right capitalist ideology.

Everyone has a different level of "acceptable, manageable biases"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com