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.
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.
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.
