roachboy

ustwo: there is no objective information. anywhere. ever.

given that, you make choices about what is important--for me, the priority is more rather than less information, more rather than less context.
the more you know about the world as it is being referred to, the easier it is to control for political viewpoints.
conversely, the less information, the less context, the more information tends to be knit into political a priori--the american conservative press is full of tis sort of thing.

so i dont know: it seems to me that you can choose to move in a number of directions in terms of information gathering, but some political positions, and the information that originates from them, hamstring you more than others.

so even if you were right about political "biais", you'd still have trouble at the level of quality and amount of information--IF you rely on us conservative press outlets and major television for your infotainment.

btw i don't say this as an argument--it's more just a rationale for why some sources are more useful than others regardless of the political viewpoints of the editorial staff and maybe of the writers.

and i forgot to mention the economist.
that i read. i have no real problem with saner conservatives on this order: i just disagree about alot. but i don't mind disagreement with interpretation if the information makes it worth wading through that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite