Hacker News Reader

Comment by Auracle | Hacker News Reader

I would personally pay for good, unbiased journalism.

Good luck finding that.

Every pieces of information is always biased unless its Shannon entropy is zero. Your FM radio tuned to nothing is basically it.

You’re welcome. Here’s my cryptocurrency address:[just kidding]

Sure, but I would like journalism that at least tries.

On All Things Considered on NPR a couple of weeks ago one of the hosts was interviewing someone about perceived media bias, and she seemed flabbergasted that people thought they had a bias. It seems to me they (and other organizations) might be in such a bubble they don't even realize it anymore.

I've found vox news to be ... mediocre. just about everything else is junk. thank god for certain subreddits that do a good job of aggregating news

This is exactly the issue. I don't trust any of these organizations alone with my information diet. I can't afford to subscribe to them all, but I don't want to favor one over the other. I've opted out and used page archives, which are better because I don't have to worry as much about unlisted shadow edits to content post-publication.

I think at this point what would work better is explicitly biased journalism but with multiple samples of the same story, in the same context, on the same page even.

What doesn't work for me is this pretend "unbiased" highly biased lets turn journalism into a partisan infotainment team sport form of journalism.

Exactly. Seems most of these big media conglomerates are leaning left. And a minority right. And then we look to what as the zero-influence news source? Not sure it can even be a corporation or organization because that’s inherently controlled by some person or persons who have left or right bias. If only there were social news networks…. Oh wait. ;)

I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

> I do enjoy this though: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

Thanks! You just gave me my new favorite news source.

Plz try not to see the world as left/right. The lenses of honest/dishonest and smart/stupid are a much better way to look at the media.

“Left” and “right” is horribly reductive. I don’t know a single person who agrees with everything thrown into those simplistic buckets.

Take even the Supreme Court. Multiple “right” judges voted to uphold the ACA and abortion restrictions; things that would certainly be top on the list of “left vs. right”.

Pay attention to the specific issues.

In principle I agree with this but you have to have a certain baseline level of privilege yo even get the choice of choosing D/R in the US. If you’re a minority or marginalized group [1] you’re basically stuck huddling around the Democrats regardless of how you think of their broader views. I’m a super liberal person so it works out for me accidentally but I have libertarian friends who would for sure vote Republican if it wasn’t for baseline existence issues like BLM or gay marriage.

Like all actual policy discussions happen within parties because of this. It’s easier to get the Democrats to be a little more conservative than get Republicans to support trans healthcare.

[1] in the colloquial usage don’t @ me with X is 49% of the population

I agree with you but I wouldn’t have used the supreme court as an example. The justices are supposed to decide whether a law is constitutional, not whether they agree with it—at least in theory, and they try to keep up some semblance of appearances.

A lot of the ACA arguments the court heard were incredibly stupid. And they still have struck down parts of the law.

What are you talking about? Right wing media space is large and powerful. Fox alone is massive anf then you have huge amount of talk radio, podcasts, journals and so on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com