Video seems like a bad format for news anytime the source content is not itself a video. A good newspaper article, either in print or digital, generally covers topics with much more detail and nuance than any television news presenter. The New York Times, Wallstreet Journal and Washington Post are all far from perfect but nevertheless they all stomp any of the cable news channels.

Youtube is a great source of information from hobbyists on specific topics. There are some bigger productions on there, but the idea of using Youtube as a news source is laughable.

Don't forget to like, subscribe, comment, retweet, share on Facebook, share on Linked, Airdrop to everyone around you, buy from the company sponsoring my video, and keep watching past the four minutes of extra padding I had to add to the start of the video to trick Youtube's algorithms!

> instead find indie youtube channels.

Like Infowars?

If you're watching any news source, and think it's not biased, you need to stop and figure out what their angle is, and why you're allowing them to fool you.

The easiest way to do this is usually listen to the other side.

I'll skeptically take self-admitted bias over subversive "neutral" any day.

The danger is limiting yourself only to sources of similar bias.

> I'll skeptically take self-admitted bias over subversive "neutral" any day.

The trick is to read about the same event from all sides.

Self-admitted bias will gladly skip, ignore, distort, and excuse elements of stories they think reflect poorly on their side. With out other perspectives you'll never know and end up with a warped sense of reality.

That's basically what I was trying to get at with the last sentence. In hindsight, it's confusing.

To youtube's credit, infowars got banned over a year ago.

I like allsides.com, too.