You can be completely factual and still biased by the language you use and what you choose to focus on. Publicly-funded media is great and all, but that's because its bias is obvious and upfront, not because it is unbiased. Attempting to be purely objective leads either to a status quo bias or a "centrist" bias where multiple extremes are presented as being equally valid.
Schmoo
joined 1 month ago
If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
There is no such thing as unbiased news sources, and any news orgs that claim to be are some of the least credible sources. The most credible news sources are honest and upfront about their biases.
Doesn't anyone find the recent uptick in articles about Islamic fundamentalist crimes odd? There are billions of people in the world and these sorts of things happen frequently, yet they rarely receive non-local news coverage. It seems to me like the media is capitalizing on rising Islamophobia (due to the escalating conflicts in the Middle East) by releasing sensational articles about Islamic extremism, which has the effect of drumming up more Islamophobic hate. When crimes like this are committed in the US by Christians the media tends to blame mental illness.
I think responding to the question with "Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights" is the best way he could have phrased it. I know the preferred way for those on the left is "no state has a right to exist," but that's not a sentiment that's going to resonate with liberals, and many would see it as "scary radical wants to burn it all down."
His answer is a clever way of proposing a one-state solution without freaking people out.
When she first got into activism she was a 16yo child of privilege and mistakenly believed the influential people who organized annual climate conferences actually wanted change.
The neoliberal media used her passion and desire for change to make themselves look good (greenwashing) by taking advantage of her naïveté, and made her famous as a result. She pretty quickly realized what was happening and was radicalized by the experience. She started giving speeches outside the climate conferences to protestors instead of giving them to wealthy neoliberals inside the climate conferences, which resulted in the neoliberal media joining in on the conservatives' smear campaign against her.
Of course, there's no way to know what is actually happening in her head, but the change in her actions indicates a radical shift in her worldview. She has become a truly radical activist for social justice. Using her fame as leverage does not discredit her in the eyes of anyone who supports her cause. It is strategic and necessary for protecting herself and her comrades from retaliation for their activism.
VPN companies and data brokers have a financial incentive to lobby for intrusive age-verification and restrictions, and prudish politicians are conveniently present in every political system. The porn lobby is powerful, but it seems they've been losing this battle recently. Or maybe they're cutting deals with the data brokers, who knows.
Why does it matter?
That does not make them a purely objective and neutral third party, particularly when they are funded/employed by a state.
I presented two different examples of how they can be biased; you have ruled out the latter and not the former. I don't even need to have seen Dutch news because you have actually expressed their percieved bias yourself, though you don't realize it. Supporting the validity of the constitution of their state government is a bias, regardless of whether or not you believe that to be a good thing. This is the status quo bias I mentioned.
I think you perceive the word bias to have a negative connotation, but it is actually a neutral term. A bias in favor of human rights, for example, is IMO a good thing.