I agree in the sense that I think "news" alone is rather worthless. You need an analysis, a context to make sense of it. Agenda and partisanship are not necessarily deal breakers IMO, as long as people are being forward and honest about it instead of faking "neutrality", whatever that is. You can be partisan while keeping your eyes open and your thinking critical instead of devolving into propaganda pamphlets. In a sense I believe that the idea of a completely fair and unbiased reporting is completely absurd.

For this reason I only subscribe to weekly or even monthly newspapers. It means those journalists are not racing to be the first ones to relay any information completely raw. Instead they can take a bit of distance, take time to analyze the situation and think of its possible consequences.

I don't know what to do when I'm told that there's been a terrorist attack in a country thousands of kilometers from me. Then we get a stream of picture, and a death count updated every femtosecond. It's sad, sure, but then what? Learning about the causes and consequences of this attack and how they fit in the history and geopolitics of our societies, now that's a lot more interesting and maybe even actionable.

You must not have read any good news. What you are talking about is known in the industry as human interest stories. That's not what real news is.

It's hard to find. Even NYT does this as opinion pages. Go to their home page, it's got a significant area of opinion. It gets progressively worse the further down the line (of news companies) you go.

The problem is news agencies is the only way to get information. Spicer doesn't invite "regular dude Joe." We in an information desert.

Disclaimer: I live in the US, and run an adblock indiscriminately and urge others to do the same.

Yes, news as we generally know it contains a lot of fluff, is almost certainly biased - whether politically or racially - and misleads through omission and incredible sources, we can go on. But, who will then do the reporting if these big news sources do not? Imagine a world without CNN or NYT or whatever. All of these sources are blamed by one political party or another to be biased and left/right/radical/whatever leaning. If we got rid of them and relied only on the smaller news entities and blogs and such, who will do the reporting on wars in Syria and Ukraine? Or who will report on whistle blowers and interview them? Why would someone of Edward Snowden's level of infamy be interviewed by a no-name news paper? Actually, on the topic of infamy, would it have even been possible for Edward Snowden to stay alive so far if general opinion was not so divided? If no one knew about him, what would save him? I would credit those same big news entities with spreading his story around and making him known. I believe that credible news sources are required for a healthy democracy, and that news organizations need to make money. Last thing we need is a government-run news entity (how can we trust one to keep us informed about grievances our governments may commit. Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart).

> Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart.

Let's also not kid ourselves about the notion of the current, big, established news organizations being independent of the same conflicting interests that ensare various parts of the federal government. No, the government doesn't control the media. Rather, big corporations and rich moguls control the government, AND the media, to the same ends.