I made a rentry page a week ago, but I want to know
20 years in the future
The implied claim that historical accounts are unbiased seems tenuous.
Just read whatever you find anywhere and leave out the opinionated bits.
In other words, you can safely assume the hows, whens, wheres and to a certain extent the whys are accurate and not made up, and anything else - particularly whether he was right or wrong, the bits about whether his victim was right or wrong, whether the cops are lying, whether the McD employee is evil, whether Mangione should be freed or fried… is all a bunch of ultra-biased hogwash, regardless of the bias.
Taking the police and reporting organizations at their word that they are giving factual information about the who, what, when, where, and why is also a bias.
As others have said, you can’t. Take a walk through any history museum and you’ll remember it’s events like this that spark change, and the US is on the precipise, with class as the determining factor.
The only people who don’t have a bias are those that are ignorant of him, because everyone in the country is impacted. And since they are ignorant, they won’t have any news for you to read.
…wikipedia’s editorial process trends toward unbiased information over time…
You’re getting down voted, but I agree with you. I think we are too close in time to get an unbiased process now at wiki. Most things take time to remove emotions and be able to look back with a critical eye.
I couldn’t ask certain questions about the 9/11 attacks because it seemed I was being unpatriotic. That I might be friendly with the terrorists. It’s like no, I just think the middle eastern man (from Iraq) working at the Eagle Mart didn’t have anything to do with Saudi Funded terrorism.
All sources have biases. Just find out what each sources’ biases are, and you should be okay.
Why not take in many sources and then average out what you hear?
Hahaha so naive
How so?
You hear 2 biased self serving lies, the truth is unrelated to both lies. Thinking about averaging is a very one dimensional thinking.
Maybe the difference is most people don’t do just two.
The wisdom of the crowds is eerily accurate when there are lots of independent samples. Keyword, independent. As soon as each of the samples are aware of each other, or, the number of independent samples proves to not actually be that high, it falls apart pretty quickly.
Weirdly enough, VSauce just put out a short on this a couple of days ago.
not weirdly enough - I saw the exact same video yesterday, assumed it had been in circulation for a while, and decided to steal his knowledge as my own and presented here like I’m a stats expert
Two independent sources have corroborated the same information. Thus it is factual.
I’m not sure I get your comment… I learned that crossing different official and reliable sources was the best way to get most of any information bit. Taking the overlapping information as the most reliable one.
Care to simplify what you’re meaning, so even stupid me can understand?
Thank you !
news outlets doing their own reporting is a good thing, news outlets waiting to see what others report, or reporting news from a other outlet is a bad thing.
sometimes getting lots of different sources doesn’t amount to much if they all come from the same source, or are reporting deliberately in-favour/contrarian to another news source
What if certain sources from other languages were followed?
Read their username
what’s a rentry page
What kind of information do you want to know about him? What do you find biased about whatever you’ve been reading? It’s not very clear how to answer this question.
Do you want my biased opinion or unbiased opinion on where to get unbiased information?
I go to all sides to get the majority of my ‘headlines’
