dont draw conclusions on anything. let information pass through one ear & out the other. no friction, no gravity. 0 IQ perfect intellect. join me

What's this obsession with neutral news and people having to not take sides? Journalism is a political job pretty much you're bound to have some degree of subjectivity in there, what would neutral news even be "this happened" "that happened" like what's even the point of reading that

what does this even mean?

Of course not what would the "hook" of their company be? They would flop immediately and have no interesting headlines, pull, debates or reading base.

News game is about racking up views, building a base and making money. What's your strategy if you don't even have an agenda? Who is the judge of what's neutral and how do you avoid writers/commentators from being bias?

I think that front is an uphill battle, as long as persons are involved there will always be bias. What we should promote really is critical thinking and the root to that is improving our education

it can't exist

if a person is writing it, its got a bias

even if you got a robot to write it, whoever programmed the robot has a bias as well

You really can’t when it comes to certain topics. It reveals the biases of those with a gigantic agenda, but not the voices of the forgotten people..

Cant have neutral news if you dont publish every occurrence ever. Your selection of content, as neutral as the content may be, is biased. Without unlimited resources you have to cherry pick your content

"First rule in this world, baby, don't pay attention to anything you see in the news."

• Kanye West

Ratings would be s*** so no.

Neutral news has never and will never exist, unless all you do is report the weather and football scorelines

This.

The way I see it,in an era that's not limited to tvs, radio stations and newspapers it seems deteriorative towards our intellect to not use every resource we have

Ratings would be s*** so no.

no

even with science something is "true" unless it's proven to be false. For instance Einstein went against a lot of science & shown something else to be true. Also there is a lot of ways you can lie with statistics and financing can also bring corruption to science. There could be two sides of the science and only one side could be amplified while the other side doesn't get media attention.

"Science" is far from over. Believing that today's science has it's answers always correct is like believing in religion.

Here in the UK we have the BBC news which is in its mandate to be impartial however left wingers say it's too right wing, right wingers say it's too left wing, pro Brexit people says it's pro EU anti Brexit, pro EU people say it's pro Brexit anti EU etc etc

I'm definitely not saying it's perfect or free from biases but it's A nice illustration of how yea it's p impossible

People ignore the entire field of philosophy of science, epistemology

Here in the UK with the BBC it works like they always present two sides of an argument in any discussion

So if they are discussing a story about mass floods caused by climate change or something they'll have someone denying climate change too

And any politics discussion obviously when talking about the story it will feature people from different sides of the political spectrum or with opposing views on that story anyway

It can be pretty exhausting especially when it's about s*** that shouldn't be a topic of debate (although unfortunately this probably does reflect the reality of political discourse now)

breaking points on YouTube is decent

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=The%20replication%20crisis%20(also%20called,impossible%20to%20replicate%20or%20reproduce.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

Exactly, and also Scientists want & have to make money and their financing has to come from other people / institutions that want to make money. (With a few expectations of honest donations.)

If something is proven to be true because of research that costs huge amounts of money and resources, which is mostly invested because a big organization would profit from it. No way someone that doesn't have any benefit to it will go against it and put the effort, costs & resources towards proving it to be untrue when there is nothing to gain. And if the corporations also have PR & media funding the thing they would gain is massive public criticism and and attack on their credibility.

Never existed

Americans that think the entire world can be summ up in dem & republicans are so cute

Neutral news never existed tho