1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

You might appreciate this little nugget of analysis

While I appreciate that the general public needs better media literacy, this guy at 'Second Thought' is also showing his own particular biases.
If I shouldn't consider Ground News, or any other sources, because of bias, then I shouldn't consider his either.

Take ALL news sources into consideration ( yes, even Fox ), but don't turn off your brain and just ingest the news; do some critical thinking. The reason for a particular news outlet viewpoint becomes evident, and you can usually discern factual information from pushed agenda/ideology.
If nothing else, Ground News helps recognize these patterns.
) no, I'm not a subscriber )

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

While I appreciate that the general public needs better media literacy, this guy at 'Second Thought' is also showing his own particular biases.
If I shouldn't consider Ground News, or any other sources, because of bias, then I shouldn't consider his either.

That's rather his point. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. A centrist position more often than not supports the status quo which is effectively a vote in favour of maintaining existing power structures. That is very far from an unbiassed position. Those who present it as such, such as Ground News, are being dishonest.

I'd sooner listen to an honest conservative such as Professor Tim Wilson or Rory Stewart, and do so on a daily basis. I may not always agree with their conclusions, but I always respect them. We actually have much common ground except on a few minor issues like public ownership of the banking sector and leaving disarmed big game hunters to the tender mercies of a dominant male leopard. I do not waste time listening to anyone from the Murdoch empire, religious fundamentalists, or certain elements on the left who have shown themselves to act consistently in bad faith. Even when they're telling the truth they're lying (see Kierkegaard for that one).

A good case for promoting media literacy, and for outlets that are not corporate owned. Guardian, Mother Jones, 404 Media, ProPublica, Prism, et al.

15 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

You might appreciate this little nugget of analysis

I did. Being a registered, card-carrying Cretaceous Period dinosaur I would also enter a plea for revitalizing the role of print/text news, given the evidence that brains forced to decode little chicken scratches can retain and reflect on information better.

I liked also the takedown of the faux-objectif aggregators out there.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. A centrist position more often than not supports the status quo which is effectively a vote in favour of maintaining existing power structures. That is very far from an unbiassed position. Those who present it as such, such as Ground News, are being dishonest

Yes! Or I would put it, "There is no good journalism without someone's perspective." (Whether or not that's a bias, in the pejorative sense, is what the reader/viewer must determine - as your video goes into)