Ask Lemmy

You can't, it isn't a neutral situation

Honestly don’t think you can find any neutral news about it. I recommend use multiple news places to get the overall view (that’s what I do).

I feel like every news-publisher is leaning to one or the other.

Stick with reputable news sites. Reuters is my gold standard. Along with AP News. They tend to be some of the least bias sources out there and do their due diligence when it comes to reporting.

It's worth noting that a lot of the news coverage may come across as pro-isreal and anti-palestinian but that's because a lot of the news is "Isreal claims this" and "An IDF statement that" the sources themselves are biased.

Also keep in mind that this is an active war. There will be a lot of wrong information as media reports the best information available, it's not the media having a bias, it's just the fog of war as things rapidly develop.

Part of critical reading is collecting more sources, not less. You'll have to read differing opinions and make up your own mind

That's the neat part - you don't.

The idea that there could be a truly neutral source is not really realistic, human minds do not work that way and there are many other reasons why it's even harder than that.

As long as you stay away from the blatant extremes, partisans, people with some other stake in the game, etc., all you can do is evaluate relative bias, and try to adjust for it. It is inevitable that your take isn't going to be unbiased, either, but this way you'll have had a decent shot at minimizing wrongness.

Nowhere. There is no such a thing as a neutral report. You need to be able to think for yourself and identify possible biases in an author

There is nowhere you can get unbiased news. You have to analyze the bias and think critically about it if you want to really understand what's happening.

Just read both Al Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post and take the average.

https://ground.news/interest/israeli-palestinian-conflict

This site collects news from multiple sources, tells you their political affiliation, shows the difference in summary based on left / center / right news sources, and optionally shows a lot more like ownership network etc if you pay for it.

Permanently Deleted

AP News is 'supposed' to give unbiased news....they're ok given how highly topical it is.

The most neutral coverage I've seen was from The Intercept.

It has a fairly anti-establishment bias, but that includes both Hamas, the PA, and the IDF.

They basically give a crap about civilians, but not about any of the institutional interests causing them to suffer, and spread that evenly across the various players.

I think BBC is pretty neutral, considering each side is accusing them of being biased towards the other.

Bad guys vs villains is never neutral. The winner writes the history and call themselves the justice. That’s how conflict works

I haven't found any, let me know if you do!

I just try to find all the information I can from all sources of all types, and then stress about my complete inability to be sure what is even true, considering how much of it is contradictory. The only thing I'm certain I learned is that neither side of this wants to tell the truth all the time, and new news will often change over the course of a week or so as people get caught in lies.

So far nowhere. You have to read multiple takes and glean the truth within.

Reuters and AP are about the most neutral, reputable news sources youll find.

There is no middle ground between their two conflicting narratives, so neutrality would be impossible unless you found a source that was criticizing every last individual who happened to be in the conflict. The closest you'd get is maybe a Bahai source, and I only say that as a tragically creative solution because Bahais don't believe in discussing politics while being forced to talk about this because their leadership has been caught in the crossfire of the attacks, having shared a promised land with the Jews and being headquartered there.

I'll continue to recommend an app called Improve the News. It'll let you filter things, but more importantly, shows you the source of articles, and explains different angles at the end of articles. Really well done.

If you find a reliable source, let us know

Highly recommend using mediabiascheck.

But if you're looking for neutrality, social media ain't the place to be, especially not lemmy.

Just remember as you read news, these are inherently biased sources. Basically all of them are. Look at who they are citing to understand how bias might affect the information being relayed to you. For example, if Hamas or Gaza Authorities are saying something, it is probably coming from a pro Hamas perspective, if IDF or Israeli authorities are saying something, probably comes with some bias too. This is true of all news, all the time. The spin is real. Anyone claiming a lack of spin are probably the biggest spinners of bullshit. It sucks that to be well informed you have to be able to be literate not only in the language but also how to read journalism itself. But that's the reality.

Read a few sources from both sides. It definitely isn't a one sided situation.

All I can suggest is to read many sources. Keep a mental tally sheet. See which sources correct themselves when they are proven wrong. Note how often they present provably false information. Try to look up the original source material (some will misquote or distort to advance their agenda). Look for widespread corroboration from other sources. After a while you'll know how each spins their information, how well they vet their material, and their overall journalistic integrity. That will allow you to rank credibility.

Misinformation often has only one source, and that source will usually have a history of misinformation or extreme bias.

I think CBC has had very fair reporting on the subject.

I found Israeli news (in english, still) to offer a much less propagandistic view of the situation than American news.

NPR/PBS is generally the way to go. Some bias can creep in, but they do their best.

Good question. It’s unfortunately difficult because it requires some knowledge of history and since there’s a cycle of back and forth violence (which most media only reports the latest episode and not what prompted it), it’s hard to follow the big picture.

No single source is going to be objective. You have to read a multiple sources and then balance what's written, and what's not written, kind of reading between the lines to infer your own conclusions. Not to mention the added chaos of an active war zone getting accurate data is always difficult

I am curious about ground news, how they're handling this situation.

From personal experience: the economist, the BBC, the guardian, Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera - are reasonable news sources to use to inform your overall opinion, don't rely on a single one though.