When there is a heated, with a lot of strong and exaggerated arguments on both sides, and I don’t know what to believe, or I’m overwhelmed with the raw information, I look at Wikipedia. Or even something that is not a current event, but the information I found on the internet doesn’t feel reliable.

I’m sure some would find flaws there, but they do a good job of keeping it neutral and sticking to verifiable facts.

  • 📛Maven
    link
    English
    38 months ago

    Okay, but like, places like AP and Reuters are right there and free. If someone’s thirsty, you shouldn’t point them at a dirty puddle because it’s better than sewage, you should turn the faucet on.

    • Aatube
      link
      fedilink
      08 months ago

      “Raw” news sources don’t aggregate though.

      • 📛Maven
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Aggregating a biased list of sources is worse than not aggregating at all. I would rather someone not know a story at all than they know one side of it as “the truth”