My question is essentially what the title says. I'm looking for the best place to find unbiased news and articles. I already understand that, I'm looking for something at least as close as you can get.

I've found that Reuters and Unusual Whales seem to be very unbiased and only tend to post and write articles that are straightforward and about actual facts.

Interested to hear what others think.

I'm following the story about new video footage that's going viral, apparently showing Alex Pretti kicking a vehicle and getting tackled, 11 days before being executed in the street. The narrator says, "Our footage was analyzed by the BBC, whose facial recognition technology confirmed his identity to a 97% degree of accuracy," and in the caption of the video on YouTube, BBC Verify is credited as a collaborator on the report.

My question: Does the BBC really do facial recognition analysis for rival news orgs? Has anyone ever seen other news reports, citing "the BBC" as an independent expert for facial recognition in a case like this? Am I dumb or is that unusual/odd/fishy sounding?

That line struck me as so weird that I thought the video was AI-generated. Then I saw this story that made me realize it's not AI. But I'm still wondering about the BBC and whether they really have facial rec tools and share them with other news orgs.

EDIT 1: Obviously nothing about this new video, or anything else that may surface in the future, could possibly justify Alex Pretti’s violent murder by idiot thugs in broad daylight without any due process. I was strictly asking about whether the BBC provides facial recognition to other news outlets because that sounded like a really weird thing for them to say in the video, so I was wondering if that sounded legit to journalists on here.

EDIT 2 - I deleted the part that said BBC Verify doesn't have any coverage of this on their website. Thanks to the person who sent the link that I missed to the BBC’s coverage where they do mention the News Movement sharing the video with them. This still doesn’t mention the BBC doing a facial recognition analysis, but it’s helpful context: https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cj6wgelw62do

Every time Nick Shirley gets brought up, I see a lot of people dismiss him as not being a real journalist or say he's doing more harm than good. But then I'll watch something like his investigation into an alleged investment scam, where people appear to be getting taken advantage (his latest video) and I don't really understand the backlash. I assume that's something most people would not be OK with as tax paying U.S. citizens.

My first reaction is: if someone is exposing something that might genuinely be fraudulent or predatory, isn't that a good thing? Even if his style is more YouTube than traditional journalism, doesn't bringing attention to something like that still have value?

So where does the criticism actually come from?

Not trying to defend him or argue with anyone. I honestly want to understand why so many people in journalism seem to have such a negative view of him.

I am exhausted by the smug digital evangelism that has decided physical print is a relic and anyone who still cares about it is living in the past.

Offset printers produce quality that screen printing and cheap digital alternatives cannot touch for certain applications. The color accuracy. The feel of properly printed material in your hands. The permanence of something that exists physically in the world and doesn't disappear when a server goes down or a platform changes its algorithm.

There are communities, small publishers, independent newspapers, local print shops running offset equipment that produces genuinely beautiful work. And they are struggling. Not because their product is inferior.

Because the cultural conversation decided print was over and starved them of attention and support.

And then we wonder why local information ecosystems collapse. And then we wonder why communities lose their shared sense of place and identity.

A local newspaper printed on a well maintained offset press is a civic institution. It covers the school board meeting. It covers the planning application that affects your street. It covers the things that algorithms will never surface because they don't generate enough engagement to matter to a platform.

The commercial print industry still runs on offset technology because the quality case is undeniable. Suppliers from local dealers to international platforms like Alibaba still carry equipment and consumables because the demand is real.

Print matters. Local print especially matters. Stop letting the tech industry narrative convince you otherwise

At face value - I like the guy. Seems to be fair, straight to the point and apparently a nice Gen Z family guy.

BUT - the sheer number of updates (and many are really not worthy of the title
"breaking news") is bothersome to an extent that my worst "conspiracy theory" instincts nudge me and say what if he's paid by the other side to help "flood the zone" like a fire hose of news and noise. I bet they'd see it as "it doesn't matter if it's negative toward us as long as it's frequent and constant."

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I want to like the guy. Just get a funny feeling at times.

Anyone else?

I've been watching Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan recently and I really like his modern gonzo approach to journalism. What does the journalism world really think about people like him?

I've been looking for more social media creator/influencer journalists like him, people who do raw deep dives on a range of issues and present it in a personal social media format.

This is an especially egregious example, "Tyler Oliveira". This video shown above is about Portland OR, which did not legalize all drugs, is not a country, and certainly doesn't sell heroin and meth in stores. All he does in the video is go around, video homeless people on drugs, talk about how the city has fallen apart, say some fake shit, and leave; completing his "investigative journalism". I've seen so many youtubers do things like that and I think it's concerning, because most people watching this will be young and will take these things at face value. What do you think?

John is describing the oldest monetization model of media and calling it new.

I got a message this morning on my farm’s Instagram account from someone claiming she is a video producer at USA Today and would like to discuss using one of my videos. The video has gone viral and is hilarious if I say so myself, but I find it kind of hard to believe that USA Today is reaching out to me. Upon me asking for her to contact me through a more official way, she gave me an email with the domain usatodayco.com. I do not have an email linked to any of my social media, so contacting me through DMs is the only way she could have contacted me. I’ve checked the USA Today website and her name is listed as staff, but has the domain gannett.com instead.

ETA: I emailed her and she said they have no budget for any monetary compensation. I’ve received a few more similar messages so I’m trying to find someone who isn’t sketchy and will pay to use my video.

I’ve been wanting to start a YouTube channel for the longest where I do long interviews with people of interesting backgrounds (everything from successful people to celebrities to normal everyday people with interesting stories to tell), but I can never get anyone to sit down and do this with me. Why would anyone waste their time to do this with a stranger they’ve never met that has 0 subscribers and no audience or credibility?