There is also the idea (that I think is a responsible thing to do) that will have to tell people you are talking to that you may not have looked in to whatever they are bringing up and you are not really the person to expect informed conversation from. Some people will continue talking about it and it's up to you whether or not you want to try to engage in the conversation beyond the courtesy acknowledgments. However, I find it a disservice to myself and the people I am talking to to try and interject an uninformed opinion or data point.
Ultimately, focus on those things that are important to you. Do your homework on those things. Recognize when you do and don't know something and don't be afraid to stop talking when you don't know something. Be willing to stop and listen, and don't go in to a conversation that you are informed in expecting to change minds.
I highly recommend reading "Avoid News" from Rolf Dobelli from 2010 [1]. This essay was published long before the problem with fake news. I stopped reading the news for 10 years now (except Hacker News and some sports) and I've never had the feeling that I missed something that was important. As a positive side effect I never have to think what kind of bias the author of the news article has, because I never read them.
They are ALL biased, but if you read widely enough and often enough, the biases begin to cancel out, and you will start to get an idea of what the actual facts behind the news are.
It takes a while, but its worth it in the long run. Sometimes the websites that are the most factual are the ones that you wouldn't have looked twice at previously.
After a while you work out which have the most 'propaganda' and which are the most neutral. With some stories, you will find that some news-agencies will try to hide them by not covering them at all - usually the stories that show that country in a bad light.
I read NYT, WSJ, FoxNews. Sometimes HuffPo and Breitbart.
NYT leans left. WSJ leans right. Everyone else is closer to the extremes. I keep that in mind when I’m reading and will intuitively correct for their bias.
You need to get out more. :)
Best case?
High clarity programs will differentiate fact and opinion clearly. Seek these. You will get many facts with only moderate effort.
Ideally, the people who produce high clarity programs will also make their bias clear and be truthful about it.
Anyone doing those things is a good source for news. This is true even when your preferred bias clashes with theirs.
Many focus on bias when we all would benefit much more from a focus on clarity and truth in bias.
AllSides also has a mobile app that works fairly well.
As others have stated, there are no unbiased news sources. Seeing the takes from different sides shows the biases and helps you keep an open mind.
As a rule of thumb you can say that if it's allowed on /r/politics then it fits neatly into the regressive left's small space of approved opinions.
There is no internationally recognised unit of left/rightness. You will always need to apply your perceived bias to anything like this. Don't expect them to match exactly what you feel.
Conflict trackers are fun, but there are lots of others
Like this one: https://carnegieendowment.org/publications/interactive/prote...
Don’t worry so much about day-to-day news. It’s more useful for conversation than it is actionable.
Everyone has a bias. I've been seeing a lot of rueters recently.
