Given how our brains work, and the basic tenents of communication, is there such thing as objective content?
If I write an article about global warming, is it biased to not present the "denial" angle? Is it biased to present the denial angle with the same weight as the "scientific" angle?
If you present scientific evidence and then correctly draw conclusions, then - assuming quality data sources - the only thing that's biased in your article is reality itself.
Truth doesn't lie in the middle, nor does it care about politics.
Almost all conclusions are drawn from a certain set of assumptions.
For example, the Affordable Care Act is in place, but costs are still rising. Some people think that this is because it's not "enough socialism". Others think it's because of "too much socialism".
You could list facts, but people are not looking for raw data, they're looking for analysis. How do you analyze this "objectively"?
Even if the content is objective in the sense of reality, many people will say it's not objective. And public opinion of "objective" sources are usually those that play to the both sides fallacy.
Going back to GGP's thing, people read what they want to read. What if you just happen to be right? Like, what if the "liberal echo bubble" is "actually" the truth? does this problem go away?
I think objectivity is hard to maintain, but objectivity + belief of objectivity in the public eye is probably impossible.
At the very least, an acknowledgement of conflicting ideas would go a long way to gaining the trust of those who may have disagreeing opinions. Give me two partisan views of the same topic, and one author points out a summary of the conflicting ideas of their "opponent" while the other is silent, if I am on the fence on the issue I am going to have more trust in the opinions of the party who was transparently honest.
I'm not seeing much of this from anyone these days.
Instead of seeking unbiased information, it's better to seek out information with biases you disagree with. Too many people are exposed to the "other side" through the lens of their own pundits, rather then going to the highest quality arguments that oppose their views.
I personally can't feel confident in my views until I have heard and understood the motivation and arguments for all sides.
If I write an article about global warming, is it biased to not present the "denial" angle? Is it biased to present the denial angle with the same weight as the "scientific" angle?
Everything is tainted by this to some degree.