[ANALYSIS, OPINION, NOTES and TUNES.]
[Author’s Note: Artificial intelligence resources were not used or consulted in the preparation and publication of this article.]
[The following is not a paid advertisement. Neither the author nor this website have any relationship whatsoever with the news sources recommended or with any artist whose work is linked.]
NOTES
Reviewing the initial landing pages of MSN, Google and Yahoo has become an increasingly disturbing exercise. Scanning any of their home pages is bound to annoy and/or anger anyone, regardless of one’s political philosophy. Why? To give but two reasons, the Fox-linked stories (and there always an abundance of them) always have something inflammatory and negative to say about President Biden or his son, Hunter. On the other hand, the Huffpost-linked stories (and there are usually several of those as well) always have something inflammatory to say about Trump or Republicans. There are, of course, other examples of inflammatory headlines to articles posted that are by either left leaning or right-leaning publishers. The problem is that the landing pages of MSN, Google and Yahoo are just loaded with these types of inflammatory anti-progressive/liberal or anti-right wing articles and too many people are prone to merely scanning (and not actually reading) the articles by these news sources to gain an idea of what the state of world and domestic affairs are. This all has a tendency to exacerbate the amount of rancor in today’s political debate.
While it is true, that things happen in the real world that should annoy and perhaps anger us, the sheer number of annoying stories posted in the front pages of MSN, Google and Yahoo demonstrates once again that what MSN, Google and Yahoo want more than anything is to for all of us to click on their site and make their home page the default page of our browsers. Meanwhile, our republic is tearing itself apart at least in part because this is the case. In short, what MSN, Google and Yahoo are now doing with their home pages is not always good for the country. Too often, their home pages look like something one would find in one or the more scandalous tabloid publications.
In short, getting unbiased objective news seems increasingly difficult these days. However, if this country is avoid tearing itself apart during these highly partisan times, it is more important than ever that each of us make a much more concerted effort than we have in the past to obtain unbiased objective news. The reason is obvious. All good decision-making and all good policy-making depends first and foremost on ascertaining the facts (before the decision or policy is made)—or at least as much of same as is reasonably and economically possible given the nature of the matter being considered and the time and expense involved in trying to make further factual determinations.
Why is this so? Knowing the facts before the decision is made, allows more objective and rational analysis by all concerned. Good decisions and good policies (that actually solve problems) cannot be made without first knowing the facts. Too often in today’s hyper-partisan environment there’s an almost total absence of rational debate. Instead debate these days is all about putting proper “spin” on the “alleged” facts. Far too many times, the supposed facts have been fabricated or severely slanted so that one side or the other can gain political advantage. Too often the objective doesn’t seem to be to solve society’s problems. Instead, its all about getting, maintaining and increasing the power of one’s self or one’s political party.[i]
Make no mistake. We, the voters, are largely at fault for this. Why? Because we consistently elect politicians who do anything to get elected, who make exaggerated claims and promises, and who fire us up with slanted political rhetoric and who tell us what we want to hear (which is typically to the effect that it’s not our fault, that the fault lies with someone else). We elect far too many extremist and fringe politicians to public office who have no ability to compromise and work with leaders from the opposing party.
And why does this happen? It’s largely because most folks strongly prefer to get their news only from news sources that are biased—and biased in way that is consistent with their own preconceived opinions. No one likes to hear news or consider viewpoints that aren’t consistent with their own preconceived world-view and prejudices. This is particularly true, when, as now the entire planet is severely challenged by so many fundamental problems. A huge one, however, is migration (which, in turn, is caused in large part by war and poverty) and the demographic change that it (migration) is causing in so many countries around the world. This has exacerbated racial, ethnic and religious tensions, which has naturally led to much distrust and fear—fear of cultural change being the biggest.
All of this only further exacerbates the economic and job-related fears that most people have because of rapid changes in technology and the endless movement of business opportunities to and from various countries around the globe. People are rightfully worried about too many things..
So what’s the solution? Candor requires that we admit that changing the behavior of society is, indeed, a very tall order. But all one can do, is what one can. First, we would suggest that everyone avoid reading too many of the news stories from clearly biased news sources. Who are they? Most folks know who they are. [ii] But anyone who doesn’t should just look at the headlines of the news stories of the news source in question, and if their headlines are, on a consistent basis over time, more than 85 or 90 percent pro or anti one side or the other, then they are very probably a biased news source and their stories should be either ignored or taken with a huge grain of salt.[iii] We strongly suggest minimizing consulting biased news sources. We would even go so far as to say that dwelling too much on the headlines of news stories on the home pages of MSN, Google and Yahoo can also give one a distorted view of the world. It can certainly inflame passions. [iv]
And so, our best suggestion at present is to consult the following three news sources every day—and more importantly, rely on them as providing a true source of unbiased news. Why did we choose these three sources? First, one should always endeavor to get one’s news from more than one source (and if they choose to get them from biased sources, they should also seek out sources that have opposing viewpoints). Secondly, the news sources below appear on the lists of several different websites who seem to have at least made some attempt to objectively ascertain the objectiveness and neutrality of news organizations generally. In short, those websites agree that the three news sources below are amongst the top ten most objective and neutral news source websites. And finally, based on our own analysis we believe these to be about as objective and unbiased as any other news sources. In short, these news sources seem to do the best job of objectively reporting the news in an unbiased fashion. [v] Moreover, they have the personnel and financial resources necessary to do the best job of actual news gathering from around the globe.
Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/
Associated Press https://apnews.com/
BBC News (they have a United States Section as well) https://www.bbc.com/news
Supplement 08-02-23
If one is ever in doubt as to whether a news source may be providing biased news coverage, it’s always a good idea to check them out on Wikipedia. Normally Wikipedia articles about news sources will give you some indication of whether the new source is left-leaning, right-leaning and/or who the publisher is.
David Dixon Lentz July 28, 2023
© Copyright 2023; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved.
[i] Too often the parties want power to force their cultural values down the throat of others. This is largely because significant portions of the voting base of both parties greatly mistrust people who are members of the opposing political party and/or who do not fall within their socio-economic group. The view here is that if the political parties focused on rationally and objectively addressing individual issues on a case by case basis (instead of we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys basis) a much healthier and effective political environment would develop—one where issues could be more effectively addressed. .
.
[ii] Of course, a very strong indication that a new source is overly biased (and doesn’t accurately report the news) exists if (i) it has been been taken to court over alleged misdeeds and misrepresentations in its news reporting, (ii) it consistently seems to be pro or con with respect to a particular political philosophy and (iii) the net result of those proceedings leads one to be strongly suspect that the news source has previously engaged in publishing untruthful stories. .
[iii] If one regularly gets the majority of their news from news sources that show evidence of bias then one is very likely to become totally brainwashed and so prejudiced that there is little, if any, chance that they will ever be capable of being convinced by the arguments that folks with opposing viewpoints have—and this is true regardless of how good or rational those arguments are. .
[iv] It’s important to remember: (i) often the author of the story does not determine its headline, the publisher does; (ii) often news stories promise more than they deliver and are, in a sense, only click bait to sell ads and/or Google or Bing rankings. Thus, too often headlines are somewhat misleading and do not accurately reflect what the article says. As a consequence, a reader cannot accurately determine the facts by merely reading headlines on the home landing pages of MSN, Google, Yahoo or on the same pages of any other source. The problem is that in today’s hectic society, with everyone rushing through the day, that’s what everyone has a tendency to do—namely, to absorb and rely only on what the headlines say. .
[v] By unbiased we mean that generally speaking, when one examines a large number of their randomly picked news stories the news source does not appear to regularly support or oppose any one political party or philosophy. This is not to say that from time to time an article may not appear supporting or opposing one party or philosophy, just that the news source in question does not consistently and on a regular basis seem to support one party or philosophy over another.