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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would not have though of that. That’s a very good recommendation! Thanks!
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.
I think that’s a better way of explaining what I meant with unbiased. It was an oversimplification on my side.