I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something. Also a lot of the things I watch, read, and listen are about technology and science, new (or old) research results, and sometimes politics comes up (mainly when a party/govt does something that's not in line with the study in question or even broad consensus) but then it's not the focus of the resource; it's not "of one party" in a meaningful way
As for learning the intentions behind an agenda, I think that's usually clear? Harsher punishments for crime is a common point from various parties for example, the point is to reduce crime, whereas research shows (as far as I could find) that there's a fairly low threshold beyond which it only functions as retribution while also increasing repeat offences because people lose everything after many years removed from society. But people don't do the research (not like I have time for researching everything either, so I don't have an opinion on many things) and so you get bad votes... But so like, it's not about partisanship but about what actually makes sense. Like nuclear energy, the parties I generally consider voting for are usually strongly against that, but I think they're misrepresenting (or not aware of) the facts in order to be in line with what their voters want from the party. I'm not partial to one party, I check what my options are for each election (note we don't have a 2-party system here either, so there's no big "us vs. them" besides perhaps racism parties)
"I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something."
I have no clue who Wilders is or what he represents, but if I read you correctly, just by applying logic, your second sentence seems to directly contradict your first sentence.
As for learning the intentions behind an agenda, I think that's usually clear? Harsher punishments for crime is a common point from various parties for example, the point is to reduce crime, whereas research shows (as far as I could find) that there's a fairly low threshold beyond which it only functions as retribution while also increasing repeat offences because people lose everything after many years removed from society. But people don't do the research (not like I have time for researching everything either, so I don't have an opinion on many things) and so you get bad votes... But so like, it's not about partisanship but about what actually makes sense. Like nuclear energy, the parties I generally consider voting for are usually strongly against that, but I think they're misrepresenting (or not aware of) the facts in order to be in line with what their voters want from the party. I'm not partial to one party, I check what my options are for each election (note we don't have a 2-party system here either, so there's no big "us vs. them" besides perhaps racism parties)