I'm an independent and as far as I can tell there is zero attempt at unbiased factual reporting of the news.
I don't think that has ever existed, but the closest I've found is Wikipedia. It is surprisingly detailed, particularly on current events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_br...
Have you read the discussions on the talk page?
If your concern has not been extensively discussed, have you raised it on said page?
Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
What I can't figure out is how it seems to still be so neutral, given that it's completely open for anyone to edit. Seems like it would be quite cheap for an organization to edit things to their liking.
Is it simply that most people don't get their news from Wikipedia, and so it's not a primary target for manipulation? Is it already awash in self-serving content and I just haven't noticed?
The short version is that you can make Wikipedia report the way you want, but you need to be strategic about it. Wikipedia reports information from "reliable sources", so instead of editing the information directly, you need to insist that the sources that agree with you are reliable and the sources that don't agree with you are unreliable. If you succeed at this, then getting the information you want into Wikipedia is just straightforward following of Wikipedia's written policy.
I just go to severs social media sites so I get at least both biases
Extensive discussions of the decision making process for each source is documented in this list.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13868889/cnn-attack...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-ca...
But please, keep lying about how CNN doesn’t criticize Harris/biden! It fits into the destabilizing narrative that “the media” is “corrupt” or “bought and paid for”.
Also, if you want unbiased media, CSPAN is that. No bias except from how the camera is physically pointed into congress. You won’t watch it because it’s too boring and despite all the hatred your profess to have against biased news, the idea of news not as entertainment is alien to you.
The most telling for me is generally the photos picked by a news outlet. On CNN for example, photos of Harris (and Biden) are almost always picked to show them in a favorable light. They'll be shot standing at a podium with an American flag behind them and a big, natural looking smile on their face. Photos of Trump are from off angles with an angry look on his face, often taken mid speech where a face will look more contorted than when smiling.
Are news outlets 100% biased mouthpieces pieces? Of course not. But they have a strong bias towards one party or the other and they don't try very hard to hide it.
Let's look at some recent CNN photos of each of them!
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240921-po...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/2024-09-26t...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240721-02...
(sources)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/cnn-poll-harris-trum...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/harris-southern-bord...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/media/abc-presidential-debate...
To which my response is "those who don't do, teach" and to point you to in-fact, do your ant observational studies anyway (i.e. watch CSPAN) because it really, really is the only way to stop seeing quite as many shadows on the wall and see a tiny glimpse of how politics actually works.
Seriously, most of the folks making real discovery today in some animal studies field is doing it from long periods of observational studies in the field. Books from academics are so full of lies due to publish or perish, academic careerism, widespread, systemic, structural, and at the highest levels academic fraud/dishonesty, and more.
Watch CSPAN, or you will be lied to. Sorry not sorry that it's boring as shit. That's the reality of politics, it's mostly boring.
"Vote for the person we picked for you because they're not Trump."
