Reality is not bipartisan. Fox has a recent history of peddling alarmingly dangerous and inaccurate conspiracy theories. I'm in favor of an algorithm that gives them less weight.
Also, I see lots of Fox and WSJ.
A study a few years ago found that WSJ's news is liberal, but their editorials are conservative. I think things look very different if you are able to forget about the editorials.
And, finally, the left/right split of people who read news is not the same as the US overall. Even if it were, it would still skew liberal, just as the US does.
No, I'm saying reality is party. For example, in the US, accepting that climate change is real is "liberal" (in the US usage of the word) and denying climate change is conservative. So if a newspaper reports factually and responsibly about climate change, the newspaper looks "liberal" and partisan.
Cherry picking one example (which happens to also be not "reality" but rather a best fit to evidence and which also does not fall as neatly along partisan lines as you appear to imagine) doesn't show anything about "reality" being politically partisan.
Partisan, by definition, is prejudice, the opposite of objectivity, and an enemy of "reality".
The natural human condition, (at least in culture or society) is to be biased (often unthinkingly, out of cultural training or personal interest). Overcoming this is the path towards understand reality.
What I mean is that, in the US, Democrats are not equally far from the truth as Republicans. Or, if you want to rephrase it without the parties, liberals are not equally far from the truth.
Objective facts will not be perfectly diplomatic. They will appear to be biased in one direction or another.
This is true of literally every issue in which one side is closer to reality/truth than the other side. I don't need to cherry pick because that's every single issue (as long as they disagree, anyway).
"in the US, Democrats are not equally far from the truth as Republicans"
Sure they are. Perhaps further on some things. It just depends on what aspect of the truth you are talking about. Economic reality or the age of the earth?
Mistaking bias, value judgement or personal preference for objective reality is a common mental trap. It's taken people, organizations and even whole cultures down many times.
I don't know what you want to say here. Are you trying to argue that NYT and WP is more trustworthy than Fox? How is this related to my post?
Are you suggesting because Google News developers believe NYT and WP is more trustworthy than Fox, like you do, so they always automatically pick NYT over WP? And this is considered as unbiased?
Or, do you mean they have a super AI to determine which news report is close to reality on each single case? So this is considered as unbiased?
> Are you trying to argue that NYT and WP is more trustworthy than Fox?
Yes, absolutely.
> How is this related to my post?
You said you don't believe an unbiased algorithm will generate so many articles from WP or NYT. I disagree, depending on whether the article is based 100% on pageviews (it's not) or also factors in trustworthiness.
> Or, do you mean they have a super AI to determine which news report is close to reality on each single case?
My understanding is that they have a mix of AI and an editorial staff. From what I've read, the goal is not to find the closest to reality, but rather the most "canonical" story (closest to being first-hand, earliest, and most thorough).
For example, most of the top stories about the Boston Marathon bombing a few years ago were from the Boston Globe, even though every newspaper was covering it. There were certain scoops/angles that were from other sources.
This may not be how the algorithm works exactly, but my point is just that "lacking Fox News and WSJ" != "biased".
Also, I see lots of Fox and WSJ.
A study a few years ago found that WSJ's news is liberal, but their editorials are conservative. I think things look very different if you are able to forget about the editorials.
And, finally, the left/right split of people who read news is not the same as the US overall. Even if it were, it would still skew liberal, just as the US does.