But it does reveal what topics both sides either avoid covering or cover poorly.
It’s nothing that should really surprise anyone at this point but it is a good reminder that where you get your news will leave you “blind” (heh) to certain things.
A good example would be like a good guy with a gun situation. Basically any situation that was “saved” by a good guy with a gun doesn’t get much coverage on the left or if they do cover it they tend to ignore the 2A aspect of the event or downplay it’s significance.
On the flip side any news that looks bad for 2A advocates will basically not get reported on by the right at all.
What blind spot is nice for is reading articles from both sides on the same event since they both report on it differently. Reading both and taking into account the underlying biases of each source make you feel like you get a better picture of the whole situation as opposed to just one view.
TL;DR: Not mind blowing at all, but kinda interesting if used correctly.
Mind blowing? No lol.
But it does reveal what topics both sides either avoid covering or cover poorly.
It’s nothing that should really surprise anyone at this point but it is a good reminder that where you get your news will leave you “blind” (heh) to certain things.
A good example would be like a good guy with a gun situation. Basically any situation that was “saved” by a good guy with a gun doesn’t get much coverage on the left or if they do cover it they tend to ignore the 2A aspect of the event or downplay it’s significance.
On the flip side any news that looks bad for 2A advocates will basically not get reported on by the right at all.
What blind spot is nice for is reading articles from both sides on the same event since they both report on it differently. Reading both and taking into account the underlying biases of each source make you feel like you get a better picture of the whole situation as opposed to just one view.
TL;DR: Not mind blowing at all, but kinda interesting if used correctly.