Where do you go on Lemmy for reliable news and politics?
Where do you go on Lemmy for reliable news and politics?
I'm enjoying Lemmy so far, for the most part.
Everything here is pretty good save for the fact that all the news and politics I can find is dominated by the same few accounts.
Half or more of the accounts have a very clear agenda. They modify headlines. Lie. Spread disinformation. And generally are just extremely toxic groups.
It doesn't seem to be a secret here either. And moderators appear to have no interest in putting a stop to it.
So, where are you subbed to for reliable news and US/Global politics?
You're viewing a single thread.
Half or more of the accounts have a very clear agenda.
Everyone has an agenda; if this makes you uncomfortable, strengthen your critical thinking skills.
The desire for a neutral source is a desire to stop thinking critically about the information you consume.
Well said and yea if you find a "unbiased source" for news, you've only fallen for their bias.
Be critical even of what interests you, and read things you don't like as well.
This is just wrong as a general statement.
Across the world there are a lot of news sources that give their best to be neutral and objective.
After reading all the comments here I'm starting to realize that Lemmy is very jaded. Explains why things are such a mess maybe.
Name one.
Reuters & Associated Press
They focus on America, as such have a broadly Western bias. Are they less biased than others? Probably. But you cannot report the news without some form of bias. The act of looking at an event and deciding what facts to include and what to leave out introduces some level of bias. As it is impossible to include every detail of an event, especially in text form, you’ll end up with a biased retelling
Almost all of the news sources around the world have news sites. I cannot keep up unless I only read those sites that have excellent reputations for being factual. Al Jazerra, BBC, The Guardian, the Independent, LeMonde, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washinton Post are on my political list. (Yes, it leans left). Credibility problem has made it harder to find right sources that I can trust.
My favorite lists are for STEM subjects. Facts, science and economics will shape how our world looks. Facts are the focus in this realm. If I only looked at Pulitzer Prize winners, I would have a good list
FWIW, my bias is our environment. Screwing that up makes most other biases moot.
You listed a bunch of neoliberal ideology reinforcing news sources and then said you lean left. If those are your news sources you're on the right my friend.
I was about to say the same thing. Imagine thinking that for example the cops and Israel apologists at NYT who used to have a regular column by BARI WEISS is left-leaning, let alone the WSJ! 🤦
The only one on their list that leans even slightly left is The Guardian and even they go full neoliberal sometimes.
My news sources have their slant, but are relatively factual and properly vetted. Pulitzer prizes and awards for journalistic excellence convince me of their quest for reporting truth. My quest is to find truth. My education was STEM and economics. I draw my own conclusions after seeing facts, but the blind spots in what I read are glaring. Even the better news sources largely miss reporting what is most important. The GINI index, global warming, why Farmers insurance quit Florida and parts of California, and absolute cluelessness of what we are doing in those policies are completely off their radar.
There is an adage that if you look at a person's spending, you see an honest picture of what their actual values are. I apply that as my strategy to cut through ideological BS.
Good on you sounds like you know where you're biased which is probably the best we can all hope for ourselves.
And the BBC (though I know there are some concerns about their UK coverage)
Ground news is pretty good.
I love ground news. But they just give you information on the bias of their sources, they aren’t unbiased themselves. You get a better picture but you are still getting it from biased sources
True. It’s interesting to read a right leaning perspective and a left leaning one of the same story though.
the theory that neutrality is objective is fucking mind numbing. the right wing reactionary perspective is never, has never been, and will never be grounded in anything resembling facts. they consistently disregard actual evidence to promote bigotry and divide the working class.
There’s a perfect example of that on my ground news widget today. It’s shows “blind spots” stories that the left and the right are under reporting. Todays under reported story by the left is “Tucker Carlson interviews Andrew Tate”. Of course the left aren’t reporting on these two cretins spreading their hatred. It’s not news, and it doesn’t deserve attention.
Second for ground news!
That's something that a lot of people miss, though: in many cases you can't be both neutral and objective. If one assessment of an issue is objectively true and the other is preposterous, neutrality itself is a subjective bias.
Non-exhaustive list of topics where a false equivalence neutrality actually distorts reality: climate change, evolution of the species; poverty and the roots thereof; racism and other discrimination; crime and the "justice" system in general.
Why is everyone talking to me as if I have no idea what I'm doing?
This whole thread has such a weird feel. Everyone is acting as if it's the media's fault that people on Lemmy are modifying headlines and posting lies.
The media isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But, there's sources you can trust, for the most part. As far as I'm concerned, at this moment, Lemmy is devoid of anything reliable.
I suppose if that's what Lemmy is, then maybe it just isn't the place for me.
Yeah I’m not sure why you’re getting the biz from some on here. I am in your camp. I like reading articles posted on lemmy or Reddit and then I also like to read the comments and people’s take on the article. Discussion is why we’re here to begin with.
Exactly yes. A well moderated news aggregation site is valuable.
Comments can be insightful. That was the difference between Reddit and the rest. Reddit had its problems to be sure. But, in an imperfect world, it was a good place to stay informed on topics with input that "sometimes" adds value.
I'm not worried about "bias" because fox news is right and NPR is left. Everyone in here acting like we're incapable of digesting information.
The problem here on Lemmy is that you nefarious actors running around unchecked
I used to go to moderatepolitics on Reddit to get a balanced take on both sides. I think there’s a moderatepolitics here too.
Neutralnews was also good for stuff that isn't necessarily political. They were very involved in evaluating source bias and fact-checking on reddit. Sadly there doesn't seem to be an active community in the fediverse that I can see.
Lemmy is no better or different than Reddit when it comes to astroturfing from political activists, state actors, and a variety of other groups. The astroturfers don’t care one whit about community standards or any lofty altruistic goals of the Lemmy community. They are simply here to sway opinion and shout down opposing views. Your best option is just to block all communities that are even tangentially related to politics.
I will be happy once regex blocks are available. That way I can recreate what I had at Reddit to block almost all political posts.
In a way, it kind of is. For a long time now the media has figured out the clickbait and enraging headlines get clicks, so that’s been the norm. The public then does the same to convince people to click in and read their posts.
Yeah, I really don't understand why OP is getting so much flak from condescending assholes on here. OP just asked where the reliable news is on Lemmy; not for a lecture on media bias. This place is starting to feel pretty toxic already.
I'm going to sound mean, but it's because you sound like you're lost. If reliability and neutrality are what you're looking for, traditional media is the place for you. The internet should be treated as a propaganda machine first and foremost.
If you thought traditional media was bad, imagine all the pitfalls of traditional media but with fewer guardrails. That's what the internet is.
You seem to expect more rigidity than what is required here, and few people will be rigid of their own accord.
All that said, if you want to spin up your own instance and run a moderate politics/no headline modification news feed, no one can stop you, and I'm sure at least a few people would come with you. Lemmy is what you make it, but it takes doing to make it so, you know?
Tldr; don't let your dreams be memes, this is a diy community at heart right now, you have infinite potential to create this thing that you want to have.
Honestly, I'm surprised. Lemmy seems to lean towards the older demographic of the internet. But the collective maturity of Lemmy doesn't seem to match the age of the userbase. For now anyway.
If reliability and neutrality are what you're looking for, traditional media is the place for you.
Lololol. I'm hardly a conspiracy guy but this is pretty hilarious all things considered. Other than AP, what Western news organization is neutral?