Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.

Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.

  • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    912·
    8 months ago

    Sometimes there’s good discussion though, and it’s good to hear different takes.

    Having comments also gives less power to the writer, like could you imagine if we all took Fox News or CNN headlines at face value and didn’t discuss them?

    • remotedev@lemmy.caEnglish
      423·
      8 months ago

      Yea, you can’t just read the news and go huh. anymore, because the news is no longer “this is what happened.” Now it’s “OMG YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS YOU’RE GONNA HATE THAT this happened AND EVERYONE IS PISSED”

      • Minotaur@lemm.eeEnglish
        235·
        8 months ago

        Actually it’s really not at all. You’re probably just thinking about Reddit/lemmy/twitter posts when you write that.

        Go on like NPR or C Span and actually read the news. It’s fine.

    • Minotaur@lemm.eeEnglish
      77·
      8 months ago

      You can literally just read news from less overtly biased news sources. There are scant few articles that I can think of where I really need a redditors interpretation of it

      • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        112·
        8 months ago

        It’s not so much what their interpretation is of the specific article is, it’s more that you might find more information from someone who has info that was left out, or maybe another source that has conflicting information.

        Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.

        It’s so much mess (through corporate ties or money) to sort through, it’s hard to trust any of them anymore

        • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          6·
          8 months ago

          Check out the articles posted on [email protected] . Every article is a summary of facts, followed by an explanation of the narrative being pushed by each side of the story.

          In a recent article about Sam Bankman-Fried being sentenced to 25 years for example, there is a “Pro-establishment narrative” and an “Establishment-critical narrative” given. In an article about the FCC and TikTok there’s a Pro-China and Anti-China narrative given. When necessary there will be more than two narratives given.

          As a bonus there’s usually a “Nerd Narrative” with a percent chance of occurrence of something related to the story. I don’t know what Metaculus is or who comprises their “prediction community”, but saying shit like this is a bit ridiculous:

          There’s a 50% chance that after a (weak) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is created, it will take at least 28.7 months for the first superintelligent AI to be created, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

          Thanks, that’s really helpful there lol. Sometimes they can be genuinely informative, but it’s the only thing I view with any real skepticism in any particular article.

        • FutileRecipe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          8 months ago

          Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.

          Have you heard of Ground News? It’s basically a news aggregator that shows multiple stories on the same event, but with a bias rating and a factuality score, as well as a ownership category. Also, a blindspot category which shows articles being shown predominantly by one side and not the other.

          The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles. It is an assessment of the political bias of the publication. The rating takes into consideration things like the wording, story choices and political affiliation of the outlet.