This trend seems to be accelerating rapidly, judging from the internal battles taking place at e.g. Vox and the NYT.https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1136962504343662592 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It may be that most people just want their preconceptions confirmed, but I think there is some market for neutral news. And it could be valuable out of proportion to its size, because the people in it would probably be both smarter and richer than the rest of the population.
Unbiased is not the goal. Variety of biases is.
It's not the org itself. It's the distribution layer the news now sits on. The affiliation of the org is an emergent property of clicks.
There's always Wikipedia and its NPOV.
There are primary sources, and there is Wikipedia. Everything in between should be met with much skepticism.
The whole thread: https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/1165602345209815040 …
I find it puzzling that "picking a side" is a successful strategy for news... I want neutral news, why doesn't everyone ;-?
You have to remember that a large number of people do not consistently read news, so while they might in theory want neutral news, they are only going to read news which is worth leaving Facebook or Twitter for.
Some sort of internet watchdog database of journalists, showing their past stories, topics, and connections (possible conflicts of interest) would also help readers filter out agendas and give honest journalists an advantage.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.