14

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] sveri@lemmy.sveri.de 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] shroobinator@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago
[-] BenJammin@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] n0m4n@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] n0m4n@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Good on you sounds like you know where you're biased which is probably the best we can all hope for ourselves.

[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] lovelymalrin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Second for ground news!

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

[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

True. It’s interesting to read a right leaning perspective and a left leaning one of the same story though.

[-] swrdghcnqstdr@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SomeoneElse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Ohthereyouare@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

After reading all the comments here I'm starting to realize that Lemmy is very jaded. Explains why things are such a mess maybe.

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
14 points (88.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43728 readers
1146 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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