Or just report god damn facts like a wikipedia article. I'm sick of all these opinions being passed off as news these days. If something is an opinion or assessment by the journalist, it should be marked in bold with red flashing letters. Yes facts can be omitted or selectively woven to support a narrative, but that's a different problem, and can be relatively easily detected by cross referencing sources.

Best source of news is Wikipedia, honestly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Free, informative, has links for deeper exploration, and best of all, a little boring.

That claim isn't even up to Wikipedia's standards: What support can you provide?

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, what is stopping anonymous bad actors from manipulating it?

The same can be said of anything on the internet, largely controlled by big tech, what is stopping them from manipulating information for profit?

nothing really, but for some reason I trust an army of unpaid pedantic nerds over editors at actual newspapers. you still see some heavily slanted articles on wikipedia from time to time, but rarely do they trip my bias meter as hard as your average NYT or Reason article.

These "unpaid pedantic nerds" have as you can imagine common interests, opinions and ideas. Its only logical that they also have the same or similar biases. And the more they align with yours the less likely they will trip your bias meter.

State and corporate actors do employ many of these editors. I am suspect of any Wikipedia pages covering some topics or people.

Wikipedia does not report facts for journalistically relevant events. It documents journalistic "reactions".

"Newspaper X wrote Y" is factually true if newspaper X indeed wrote Y and NOT if Y is true. This in combination with the fact that they (who?) decides which newspapers are accepted, makes Wikipedia very much a propaganda tool when it comes to politically relevant topics and events. They do the "selecting and omitting" to support a narrative all the time.

I see the value in your perspective, also.

The stock quotes and sports scores are the only unbiased sections.

Save themselves? Isn’t their strategy doing alright business-wise? Your users are passionate and retained when your partisan enough (but not so partisan they can’t trust you).

Republicans view NYT as very biased, but democrats almost entirely believe it’s unbiased and accurate. The NYTs rides the line really well and continues to grow.

On the flip side, both democrats and republicans largely regard Fox News as entertainment news and more biased. They don’t ride the line too well.

> Republicans view NYT as very biased, but democrats almost entirely believe it’s unbiased and accurate.

That is not true of Democrats. In fact, everyone dislikes the NYT (which is excellent evidence that they are good journalists). For example, progressive Dems have long seen they NYT as a tool of the corporate mainstream, almost the epitome of it. For centrist Dems, the Times broke the Clinton email server scandal and covered the Wikileaks DNC emails.

Dems generally have more skeptical views and get news from more sources.

> democrats and republicans largely regard Fox News as entertainment news and more biased. They don’t ride the line too well.

They are exceptionally influential and profitable, so it depends on your standard for 'well'. And don't forget the Wall Street Journal, the elite outlet for the same organization.