12
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hobata@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

Unbiased investigative journalism is an oxymoron.

[-] emmy5482@quokk.au 10 points 1 week ago

Some of the best I've seen is 404media.

Interesting articles and a fairly good spread from such a small team.

https://www.404media.co/

[-] Skeletal4420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

404media has some deep blind slots in regard to racism and it's relationship to surveillance. They don't seem to fully understand that surveillance isn't just about coercing people to follow laws, but that as identities are criminalized more and more, it is about making people feel uncomfortable supporting and standing up for the people in targetted groups. I feel like this comes from having a predominantly cis//white perspective that forms the understanding of this issue. Just my opinion.

[-] emmy5482@quokk.au 1 points 1 week ago

I haven't gotten that perception from them. But I mostly listen to their podcasts, which often goes into much more detail than the articles.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

What the propagandized perceive as “unbiased” is in fact the hegemonic bias of the ruling class. That’s what you’re asking for without even realizing it.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

What I mean is a source that is equally likely to criticise and bring unethical shit to attention, regardless if it is being perpetrated by the left or the ruling class.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We’ve been propagandized to believe that “centrist” journalism is the most reliable, and that the further from center the less reliable, and given how far to the right the Overton window is in capitalist states, “centrism” is objectively right wing. And the premise of “centrist objectivity” doesn’t hold water.

Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to dig up my relevant previouslies on media literacy, propaganda, and Gramscian hegemonic theory.

Edit to add: even what the average person considers to be”ethical” is shaped by how he ruling class. In capitalist states, for instance, private property is sacrosanct.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

I am well aware of the Overton window. I also agree that centrist objectivity is also BS. Also, "both sides are bad rhetoric" is in part what has enabled the rise of racism in the world again.

I still think there can be journalists who do their best to hold all power to account with the or reporting.

[-] Skeletal4420@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I think what people are trying to tell you in a more pedantic way, is that all media is biased, because all people are biased and all that unbiased really will mean is that the authors share your same bias and blind spots, so it will look fair, when you don't understand the ways that it might affect somebody with a different perspective. Even reporting strictly facts has the bias of what facts were not included. It's impossible to include all facts in a story about something, so the only way to get an accurate perspective is to collect experiences. The pictures people in gaza take of their lives will always give you a better perspective of what is happening than the news organization that doesn't want to unfairly represent anybody. So accept bias as part of media. Try to find your own blind spots in that exploration. To that end it doesn't so much matter what you read, but how you read.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

The reality is that truly neutral sources simply do not exist. Everybody has a point of view, that's what makes us human, we will always interpret facts and events through the lens of our personal experience and our understanding of the world.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That is true, but there are people who are aware of that and try as much as possible to mitigate it. Where others go full on in trying to confirm their bias as much as possible.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sure, but I don't find it matters that much when you're aware of the fact that people have biases as a reader. You can read news from any source and understand the slant of the publication. In fact, it can often be informative to read sources with known biases because the framing itself is informative. For example, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Yes, but it is also important to financially support good journalism. That is what I am looking for in this post. That does not mean it is the only source of news one should read.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sure, but I'd argue good journalism doesn't have much to do with having a bias. It's perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it's not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.

What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

I think that's a better way of explaining what I meant with unbiased. It was an oversimplification on my side.

[-] Skeletal4420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

If you are looking for stuff to financially support specifically, I think sites that handle leaks are probably your best bet. They always need money between all the legal shit and the infrastructure that requires.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I would not have though of that. That's a very good recommendation! Thanks!

[-] doomsdayrs@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago
[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

And I suppose Infowars as well now

[-] lemonhead2@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

i like Mother jones, pro publica.

also npr, ap, PBS, guardian. (these aren't quite investigative... but they're independent non-profits).

[-] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Anyone who claims to be "unbiased" is lying.

[-] neo2478@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I agree. I am looking for journalism that it is aware of their bias and is going the beat they can to mitigate it.

[-] Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago
[-] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Seconding Drop Site News. They've been publishing pieces on Epstein's links to Mossad that other outlets won't touch and they're getting heat for it, as well as their coverage of Gaza.

[-] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago
[-] timmytbt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Fuck The Guardian. I used to support them until I realised that even as a subscriber they were selling my information to 100’s of “partners”!

[-] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic have been knocking it out of the park reporting on the Trump administration

this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
12 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

54391 readers
489 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS