I never said it was biased. If you read my source article, journalists working for Euronews have also said they haven’t been limited yet in reporting on Hungarian topics, or anything related to Orban. I do still think it’s important to realise who owns a news outlet. Especially if if’s Orban who is a big investor.
Comment on How world leaders responded to Iran's drone attack on Israel?
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 7 months agoJudge articles by its content, not investors. Case in point, see Thousands protest in Budapest as Orban embroiled in corruption cover up. Tell me how positive and biased it is.
WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Chuymatt@beehaw.org 7 months ago
Being aware of funding allows for a wiser read of articles.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
I think the opposite is true. If it’s funded by someone who, the person has negative or positive associations that can influence how the person perceives what they read. The same network can have good, bad, well researched, poorly researched or even paid advertisements in the article. Judging individual content on its own, is the only way to have the most objective read. We are already influenced by our own bias based on our own life experiences, environment and other factors.
Chuymatt@beehaw.org 7 months ago
… honestly that makes no sense. Being aware of funding sources allows you to be weary of bias and the potential point of view driving a story. This goes for any source. This is not a dig at you, but generally good practice.
One’s own personal biases is another matter altogether.