However, you can sort of get this if you limit yourself to "agency" news, ie AP or Reuters. If you have a big chunk of money and news is important in your work, you'll have a Bloomberg terminal.
> However, you can sort of get this if you limit yourself to "agency" news, ie AP or Reuters.
I've heard something about "wire services" before, but I'm not sure if there are any accessible to individuals at prices a regular person like me could afford. Do you know of any?
Journalism is not about digging until you find some kind of underlying "fact", there simply isn't time and what you're asking for could potentially be an extraordinary amount of work; journalism is about reporting what the reporter sees and what people tell them. Obviously it's incumbent on them to evaluate their sources, but not usually to write next to the sources' words the journalist's own opinion of the situation.
So for example in the Vegas situation, there will be a large number of official statements put out by various official bodies; or the reporter might call the hospital or a contact there; or they might go there and interview some people standing around.
But remember that this stuff does not cross the bar into what science or history would consider a fact. It's a snapshot of who's available and summary of what they said. There are always more people or organizations you could call for a quote, more people you could interview. And of course not all of them can or should be reported directly - there may be whistleblowers or vulnerable people to protect with a layer of indirection.
The problem with this thinking is right there in the word "relevant". What's relevant? The name of the shooter? Maybe he had a history with someone in the band? What high schools did they go to? What were their job histories? Where have they lived? What weapons did the shooter use? Are they easy to obtain? Were they legal? Why or why not? Guns can be more or less effective depending on the conditions. What was the weather like? Was it normal weather for Las Vegas at this time of year? Is it ever bad enough to be a concern?
Somebody always chooses what is and isn't relevant. There is no such thing as a complete, ""unbiased"" catalog of all the facts.
(Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse are three of the bigger ones)
I guess I would ask Google and Facebook, etc. to keep 4chan and reddit off the top of news results in favor of more reputable news orgs. At the same time, I recognize that sites like those can absolutely provide unique info that mainstream media cannot. However, we have to recognize that the info is raw and unfiltered. It cannot become canon without further confirmation.
For example, it will take a lot of time for investigators to get close to the truth of what happened but no one is going to wait for official reports before publishing their takes on the incident --and I'm not nor would expect that. But we also can't very well expect only objective truth to be present in news stories/articles.
Should Google FB do a better job a filtering obviously bogus information? Sure. Should they only source from a "pool" of sources in the era of citizen journalism? I don't think I want to cede that to news orgs who want to perpetuate their aura as the only legitimate purveyors of news.