Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Care to recommend any objective news outlets?


I am quite enjoying it these days. It presents the same news from various news sources and highlights a crowd sourced 'bias' rating for them. So, you can see the same story side-by-side from Fox News, New York Times, WashPo, etc.

No news source is truly objective. Your best option is to read various news sources with different biases, and keeping in mind how they lean.

> No news source is truly objective.

No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)

That's not entirely true. One can be objective but it does take some self awareness that's not touted much these days.

It's a noble goal but, I think, doomed, because we're all inherently biased towards things that a) were written(1), b) in a language we understand, and c) were delivered to us somehow. What about all the things that happened that weren't written-about? What about all the things that didn't happen, for that matter? The tree over there in Bloomington IN at the corner of Whatever and Whatever, is still there -- find out more, tonight at 11! Or what about the things that were written-about, just not in your own language? Putin has an 83% approval rating back home, but the US media seem to want me to think he's the next Hitler. If I could read Russian better, I could find out a lot more about it.

What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things.

(1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium."

Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.

Well, I doubt any of us is perfect. I do my best to read the news & opinion responsibly: consider what evidence is given and do not give weight to hearsay with no proof, wait for each side to have its say before weighing evidence, and to make no rush to judge anyone.

I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.

Even if you are truly self-aware, there is no view without a point of view.

(And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.)


The Intercept while not perfect, has a pro-privacy, pro-people stance and does great reporting about serious issues largely ignored by mainstream outlets, like drone strikes.

Reuters or AP is the closest you can get to objective news, as they're both press agencies. (Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency.)

There is still a bias in which things are considered news worthy and how often they are reported. In principle an objective newspaper can correct for that.

this is the problem the BBC falls foul of. Their reporting is reasonably impartial but they're infamous for excluding reporting on topics that they are not politically aligned with and over-reporting stories that support certain narratives.

   Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency
Should be key principles of any press agency. If you're old enough to remember TASS in Soviet times (TASS still exists and is still under Russian state control and still portrays the world in a way very favourable to Russia) you'll know what I mean here, or just look at KCNA (the North Korean press agency) for a current example. I'd go so far as to suspect any state-controlled press agency of bias in one way or another.

I've been reading Reuters for the past couple months. It's about as objective as you can get. For me other places are fine to read opinions/commentaries after I read the actual news first and gave it a bit of thought myself.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact