Honestly podcasts are what had me become a paid subscriber. They are very well done w questions asked and much opportunity for interviewees to speak. As I read the articles though, I'm becoming less clear on what a free press is. I was hoping to find articles presented in a variety of perspectives and information shared so that readers c…
Honestly podcasts are what had me become a paid subscriber. They are very well done w questions asked and much opportunity for interviewees to speak. As I read the articles though, I'm becoming less clear on what a free press is. I was hoping to find articles presented in a variety of perspectives and information shared so that readers can make an informed decision as to what they make of what has been reported. I may be unclear on what The Free Press is; since becoming a paid subscriber in December, I'm hearing one perspective in the articles. The one today on Rubio gave a better breadth. Hopefully I'll see more of that type, otherwise Bari or someone help me understand the reporting of Free Press for a reader who is looking for information to make informed opinions of one's own, not to be swayed, convinced of someone else's opinion.
I’ve never been able to get into podcasts, but I agree that a lot of the article choices seem focused more on providing opposing angles on hot-button issues (admittedly, a better approach than most news sites) rather than actual, unbiased reporting (more challenging, but the ideal).
The editors do seem to listen to some of the criticisms in the comments. Hopefully, they’ll balance away from so much both-sidism reporting and editorializing (though that has its place) and more toward an unbiased depiction of the actual situation. Tell us the news, let us decide our own opinions.
Honestly podcasts are what had me become a paid subscriber. They are very well done w questions asked and much opportunity for interviewees to speak. As I read the articles though, I'm becoming less clear on what a free press is. I was hoping to find articles presented in a variety of perspectives and information shared so that readers can make an informed decision as to what they make of what has been reported. I may be unclear on what The Free Press is; since becoming a paid subscriber in December, I'm hearing one perspective in the articles. The one today on Rubio gave a better breadth. Hopefully I'll see more of that type, otherwise Bari or someone help me understand the reporting of Free Press for a reader who is looking for information to make informed opinions of one's own, not to be swayed, convinced of someone else's opinion.
I’m glad to learn that I’m not alone in feeling this way.
I’ve never been able to get into podcasts, but I agree that a lot of the article choices seem focused more on providing opposing angles on hot-button issues (admittedly, a better approach than most news sites) rather than actual, unbiased reporting (more challenging, but the ideal).
The editors do seem to listen to some of the criticisms in the comments. Hopefully, they’ll balance away from so much both-sidism reporting and editorializing (though that has its place) and more toward an unbiased depiction of the actual situation. Tell us the news, let us decide our own opinions.