I don't know even one news source I "trust." I expect them to push an agenda.
I also don't think they care even a bit. They're pushing agendas, and not hiding it; rather, flaunting it.
I also don't think they care even a bit. They're pushing agendas, and not hiding it; rather, flaunting it.
Every source has it's biases, you should try to be aware of them and handle information accordingly.
They're both a bias, of course, but one is more palatable.
Why not interpret it to mean something like “no news organization has biases that are fully aligned with my best interests”
I think the real problem is that they often dont put events in context, which leads people to misunderstand them. They report the what not the why, but most events don't just happen one day, they are shaped by years or even decades of historical context. If you just understand the literal event without the background context, i dont think you are really informed.
Instead of reporting just the facts, they include opinions, inflammatory language, etc.
Reuters writes in a relatively neutral tone, as an example. Fox News doesn't, and CNN doesn't, as examples of the opposite.
If you don't notice, I doubt you're reading the news. It's part of the offering. Fox does it on purpose, not accidentally.
This is the particular thing I care about. If I can count on their facts, I can mostly subtract their agenda.
See: https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive
The problem comes in when I can't count on the "facts" being reported.
Newspapers in my country always were blogs before the internet existed. Its why they are still around and doing quite well- they don't just bring news.
Information bias is unfortunately one of the sicknesses of our age, and it is one of the cultural ills that flows from tech outward. Information is only pertinent in its capacity to inform action, otherwise it is noise. To adapt a Beck-ism: You aren't gonna need it.