But I think it's really important to replace the "left bias"<>"right bias" slider with a button and text field that simply requests users to report non-neutrality in the write-up, without identifying it as "left" or "right".
Reduction to left/right is rarely helpful and often unhelpful. For most issues complex/significant enough to warrant headline, there isn't -- or shouldn't be -- a monolithic "left" or "right" position one could be biased towards.
Is an authoritarian bias left or right? Is a populist bias left or right? Or is a pro-universal-income bias left or right? Is legislative supremacy as opposed to judicial supremacy a left or right bias?
Better to get the yes/no data about perceived non-neutrality and then analyze the qualitative comment.
Perhaps best to refer to the default view here as "composite" rather than "impartial".
Something like this can be great, but feel a hand curation would probably be better served. Here’s a quick one, read Vox and then Breitbart. It’s an intellectual rollercoaster ride.
If you absolutely must approach this with a false-equivalence (or "fake-balance") mindset, the WSJ and NYT are two much better sources, and have a better claim of being equidistant from something approaching a political center (CNN, at least when I used to watch it, was nowhere near as insane as FOX at the time).
I you don't have much time, just read the NYT. It's the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, and, despite repeat assertion to the opposite, they are better today than they have ever been.
This is great work! I have wanted some version of this news site for years and have been making sketches for how it would work. My working title for the site is "Unspun" and very similar in spirit, except instead of the "Impartial" view, the "center" would just be a list of facts about things that happened that were referenced in both a Left and Right version of an article. And there would be lines connecting the center facts to where they show up (if they do at all) in the Left and Right articles. I'm pretty happy with this format, but I still kind of want to see all 3 versions at the same time so I can cross-reference. But I must like it because I just sent links to a whole bunch of friends and family. :-)
The better questions about a news source are
1) do they have integrity?
2) are they in touch with reality?
I think the more transparent, even talking about current limitations, will gain you more trust with users
https://knowherenews.com/event/51fd8dac-6a58-4d8b-ba14-83f0c...
Compared to the story in Time.
http://time.com/5389781/elon-musk-smokes-marijuana-podcast/
The first paragraph is the same.
And that was just the first one I tried.
But what about Trump? Whether we like it or not, very nearly 50% of the voting population voted for him (and how many millions more were fine not voting against him by not voting at all). Are we to deny the POVs of the representative that 10s of millions of Americans elected? It's not quite the same argument as the overwhelming consensus on climate change.
EDIT>> In fact, I just realized that being deliberately unfair to Trump, as you seem to be suggesting, just feeds into his constant portrayal of MSM being "fake news", and only strengthens his position.
But still: the idea that truth is somehow subject to voting, as expressed in your slider, is far too post-modern for my tastes.
The impartial version "feels" impartial enough in tone, whereas the other two feel more openly partisan, the right one more than the left. But the story becomes more complicated when you look at the actual content.
Impartial version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Mentions that immigration is a central issue, but with no explanation.
- Quotes Kakabaveh from the Left party, at length. Mentions that she criticized Sweden's approach to integration, but with no details or explanation. Mentions threats on her by racists and fundamentalists.
- Is described as "impartial" at the bottom.
Left version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Only mention of immigration is that SD is anti-immigrant.
- Cites social democratic prime minister Löfven's criticism of SD.
- Is described as "positive" at the bottom.
Right version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Mentions that immigration and crime are top issues.
- Explains immigration and crime issues.
- Explains that SD "may not" be in the government.
- Cites SD leader Åkesson on broadening that party's appeal.
- Is described as "negative" at the bottom.
The left version goes into some detail on the workings of the Swedish parliamentary system, which are given a mere nod in the right version. On the other hand, the left version does not say anything at all about any issues with immigration in Sweden, while the right version goes into quite a bit of detail, and also discusses a crime issue, which is unmentioned elsewhere.
As for the impartial version, the content turns out to be basically the same as in the left version. Immigration is mentioned, but without any explanation of why it has become a political issue. And the politician cited is actually from the Left party, which sounds farther left than the Social-Democrat PM cited in the left version.
By neutrality I mean the facts and reality. Reality is inherently real and not up for negotiation. I just want to know what has happened in the world without any additional comments/thoughts/propaganda etc. by the journalist.
