seriously though... if you ever decide to post more videos of your analysts discussing articles and explaining their scores, that'd be my new favorite TV show.
Essentially, while the 3 person ''pods'' can regulate each others opinions on articles, the collection of 40-ish judges is still subject to bias appointment (who picks the judges? and what makes them immune to making bias choices?) I would say the most credible companies here are WSJ and Reuters...but you should always look across the spectrum to see what the others argue about.
The Ad Fontes charts always seem a bit out of wack. NPR is definitely way more left of center than AP News, it seems like they traded the appropriate spot. Among other things, the overall political bias of MOST providers on this spectrum are noticeably understated. I also don't think complex analysis should contribute to a source's credibility or objectivity, as the additional sources used and omitted and angles displayed are undeniably influenced by the writers' leanings. You're no longer reporting "this is what happened, this is what someone said", but you're adding "this is what we made of it, this is what it means..."
