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
For the corners, I was imagining a writer who puts out really good, accurate articles, but limits his topics to those where he feels strongly that his political team is in the right.
Well, either he's correct about that or mistaken. If he's mistaken, then he's not accurate. And if he's correct, he's not biased.
But there is a bias in the stories and the angle that you take. You can be factually correct in saying that climate change already happened in the past and will happen again while omitting our impact on it.
I think the gap here is that I'm not referring to cognitive bias, but rather the extent to which the source's reporting serves a political (vs. pure informing) agenda. My upper corner journalist is like a prosecutor—doesn't tell lies but cherry picks evidence to sway the jury.
But now I see that my use of the word "bias" does seem to imply cognitive bias (which is another relevant factor but not what I'm illustrating in this visual). I'll change up the wording to get rid of the ambiguity.
Imagine the reporter as a Maxwell's demon, always accurate, but only letting through articles favouring one side. This is accurate, but biased.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
