this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43757 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I got a lot of my headlines from reddit. Due to the impending death of my favorite app (Sync for Reddit) however, that's coming to an end.

I'm now realising my Reddit experience had deteriorated slowly, just doomscrolling the hours away wasn't healthy and I'm even kind of glad this is a good reason to end it. However, reddit has been really useful for news, especially the comments (taken with the right amount of skepticism) could be very informative.

I hope Lemmy builds something similar, but the defederation of beehaw's news has been a setback.

What would be a good alternative, going forward, for getting news and backgrounds from varied, trustworthy en unbiased sources?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] OFS_Razgriz@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both of them have truly neutral coverage, as in they report based on fact and reality and don't limit what they write in order to maintain some false sense of neutrality. Many news sites nowadays play down objective fact in order to maintain "neutrality" between one side of the political spectrum that believes in evidence and statistical fact and one that expressly does not.

This of course means that they're seen as being "anti-Trump" or "anti-Republican" but in actuality it's reality itself that is anti-Trump and they just report reality.

[โ€“] 14specks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would caution against putting so much faith in them both so strongly. They both favor American establishment liberal politics, which is transparent to many due to the fact that a lot of Americans agree with those politics, and that they appear very reasonable in comparison to whatever tf Republicans are up to on a given day.

It's not a bad thing that they tend to have a very dry and straightforward tone, but all outlets are biased, and it's important to remain critical at all times if you want to have an accurate picture of a current event.

[โ€“] OFS_Razgriz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh fully agree, of course. Every once in a while I see a neoliberal dipshit in their opinion columns making some abhorrent take, but generally they're significantly better than WaPo, NYT, CNN, Fox, CNBC, NBC, or CBS.

Some other good ones are Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the Associated Press, which of course each come with their own set of biases as well. Reuters is also fairly establishment liberal, Al Jazeera is useless for any news about the Middle East, and AP's opinion and analysis columns lean pretty conservative.

My comment was more in the sense that a "neutral" news site is one where they do not suppress facts because those facts favor a perceived "side" of a debate, which is becoming increasingly common as major political parties in the US and abroad start pushing outright falsehoods in their rhetoric.