Understand every side. Question your own.
I've spent my career studying how people form political beliefs, and one pattern shows up constantly: the less contact someone has with an opposing argument, the more convinced they get that anyone who holds it must be foolish or arguing in bad faith. That's not really a media bias problem. It's a diet problem — most of us only ever consume one side's version of events, so we never have to reckon with the other side's actual reasoning, only a caricature of it.
Transparency Project is my attempt to fix that, at least a little. Give it a topic, and it goes and finds how each part of the political spectrum is actually talking about it right now, pulls the real sources, and lays them out side by side — not a debate stage, not a lazy “both sides” shrug, just what's genuinely being said, where it came from, and where people agree or disagree once you strip away the caricature.
I don't expect it to change anyone's mind on the big stuff. But if it gets you to understand why a reasonable person could land somewhere other than where you did, I'll call that a win.
Transparency instead of neutrality
Most news aggregators tell you they're unbiased. I'd rather not make that promise — it's not really possible, and pretending otherwise is its own kind of dishonesty. What I can do is show my work: every source gets labeled with the perspective it was searched under, every summary sticks to excerpts you can go read yourself, and every claim links straight back to where it came from. You get to judge the sourcing. My job is just to make sure you can actually see it.
How it actually works today
When a topic is submitted, we run a separate web search for each perspective — communist, socialist, Democratic, independent, Republican, and libertarian — pull the full article text from the results, and tag each source by outlet whenever it's a recognized publication. Otherwise it's tagged by which search surfaced it, and we say so explicitly next to the source.
Our research process then reads only those excerpts — nothing else — and produces a structured comparison: an overview, a summary per perspective, and explicit points of agreement and disagreement. Every sentence that makes a claim is required to cite the specific source it came from.
If a perspective turns up little or no real coverage on a given topic, the comparison says so plainly rather than inventing a balanced-sounding position that isn't actually supported by anything.
Where this is headed
This is the first real piece of a much bigger idea I've been building toward for a while. Verified experts weighing in under their own name, a proper library of primary sources you can search on your own, claim-by-claim tracking so a specific number or quote doesn't just vanish into an old article, and an honest record of who actually called things correctly — that's all coming. I'm building it in the open, one working piece at a time, so what's live versus what's still just a plan should always be obvious. Check the footer if you want to see where things stand.
Browse by category
Comparisons are organized under Politics, Economics, Social, and Health. Want to run one of your own? Head to Research.