Whether a source is biased towards the left or right is not as important as to whether the story depends on facts and fact-dense analysis (best), fact-supported and fair opinions (okay), or taunts, propaganda, and fabrications (fringe stuff that’s harmful to our civic well-being).
This version of the Ad Fontes chart shifts the AP a little to the left, and Fox 11 Los Angeles is closer to the center than CNN’s website.
Similar:
A.I. 'Completes' Keith Haring's Intentionally Unfinished Painting
Seton Hill students Emily Vohs, Elizabeth Burns, Jake Carnahan-Curcio and Carolyn Jerz in ...
“The Cowherd Who Became a Poet,” by James Baldwin. (Read by Dennis Jerz)
Dr. David von Schlichten honors the spectrum of motivations (not always financial) feature...
Journalist flexes in story about Trump Media accountant who has spelled his own name 14 di...
Collegewide game encourages small interactions around campus
All information on the internet is bias one way or another, none of it can be trusted
Where there are humans, there is bias. Some humans are more trustworthy than others.
Some humans are intentionally misleading in order to attract an audience (perhaps to sell ads, or to secure votes, or just to be a troll).
Other humans passionately believe their views are the best, but haven’t informed themselves fully on the issue, so their argument is incomplete (even if it’s not intentionally misleading).
Some humans are genuinely interested in why factions disagree, and thoroughly and fairly explore diverse views, and report their findings so that others can make up their own minds. This is one reason while I sometimes like to read articles about US politics written by reporters based in Europe or the Arab world. Of course those humans are biased, too, but their biases aren’t the same biases the fuel the US “red vs. blue” rivalries. I get a broader understanding of issues when I read about them from multiple sources that lean in different directions.