NPR

Any recommendations for both UK and the World will be gratefully received.
So many seem to be pushing thier own agendas.

Main recommendation is don’t just look at one. I look at the BBC, the Guardian, The Economist, and occasionally the Financial Times, the New York Times, Huffington Post. Various other things when they come up.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:56 am Main recommendation is don’t just look at one. I look at the BBC, the Guardian, The Economist, and occasionally the Financial Times, the New York Times, Huffington Post. Various other things when they come up.

Thanks, I have crossed off the BBC (except the sports section) long ago and have found the Huff and Guardian good.

The Druid wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:16 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:56 am Main recommendation is don’t just look at one. I look at the BBC, the Guardian, The Economist, and occasionally the Financial Times, the New York Times, Huffington Post. Various other things when they come up.

Thanks, I have crossed off the BBC (except the sports section) long ago and have found the Huff and Guardian good.

I do try and view every source with a skeptical eye, including the bbc, but it's good to understand what the main media news outlet in the UK is saying.

Reuters

Mainly MSNBC. LBC and The. Gaurdian.
I also read teh daily Express quite a bit but don't trust a single fucking word of it.Just basically to read what the enemy are up to.

LBC for James O'Brian, he is just superb.
MSNBC for Deadline Whitehouse, I really like Nicole Wallace.
and for the Rachel Maddow Show, been following her for more than a decade.
Don't mind Chris Hayes also don't mind. Morning Joe on MSNBC either.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:33 pmReuters

This and this only

None of the above, gave up reading papers for news decades ago and don't believe believe the TV channels beyond the fact that something has happened. Everything else is simply sensationalised opinion.

On and the Independent (online).

Google News is a good aggregator, you can tweak it to show/hide sources you're less interested in, like the red tops.

It does mean giving info to Google about your browsing habits, but I doubt there are any online news sites that dont harvest your info.

dkm57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:00 pm None of the above, gave up reading papers for news decades ago and don't believe believe the TV channels beyond the fact that something has happened. Everything else is simply sensationalised opinion.

+1

I don't particularly enjoy their online coverage but I think you would struggle, in the main, to get more balanced coverage than the BBC to be honest

Breitbart usually has its finger on the pulse and produces balanced articles

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:00 pm On and the Independent (online).

The independent has a very strong biased agenda

Towards reality?

France 24 is excellent. For lots of world news AJ is pretty good.

Anyone want to tap the ball into that open goal?

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:53 pm Towards reality?

Towards what you like to hear I assume.

This thread though. It’s just begging for political shit fights.

We have enough such threads surely.

Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:09 pm This thread though. It’s just begging for political shit fights.

We have enough such threads surely.

I’m not even going to mention my brainwashing of choice

But I agree that multiple sources has to be a sensible strategy. PR and NPR are part of that if you like to push the envelope

I must admit I am partial towards

https://www.landoverbaptist.org

I find it about as honest and unbiased as any mainstream news outlet

Guys it isn't 2008 anymore. Imagine we are in orbit, on some moon, and the inter-galatic pub you are in has 300 people in it, and 50 people in it, sat over by the band, just saw 135 thousand needless deaths of their people, saw millions put in deliberate penury and they are basically all forced to rely on charity for their entire existence, because the other 250 people decided to just hate the fuck out of them because they wanted a taxcut.

You are from a completely different planet, just landed and have had to experience none of these things.


A) who the fuck are you to comment?
B) what the fuck do you know about reality or bias?

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:40 pm Guys it isn't 2008 anymore. Imagine we are in orbit, on some moon, and the inter-galatic pub you are in has 300 people in it, and 50 people in it, sat over by the band, just saw 135 thousand needless deaths of their people, saw millions put in deliberate penury and they are basically all forced to rely on charity for their entire existence, because the other 250 people decided to just hate the fuck out of them because they wanted a taxcut.

You are from a completely different planet, just landed and have had to experience none of these things.


A) who the fuck are you to comment?
B) what the fuck do you know about bias?

Are you okay??

The Onion

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:40 pm Guys it isn't 2008 anymore. Imagine we are in orbit, on some moon, and the inter-galatic pub you are in has 300 people in it, and 50 people in it, sat over by the band, just saw 135 thousand needless deaths of their people, saw millions put in deliberate penury and they are basically all forced to rely on charity for their entire existence, because the other 250 people decided to just hate the fuck out of them because they wanted a taxcut.

You are from a completely different planet, just landed and have had to experience none of these things.


A) who the fuck are you to comment?
B) what the fuck do you know about reality or bias?

HAL would know what to do, Shirley.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:40 pm Guys it isn't 2008 anymore. Imagine we are in orbit, on some moon, and the inter-galatic pub you are in has 300 people in it, and 50 people in it, sat over by the band, just saw 135 thousand needless deaths of their people, saw millions put in deliberate penury and they are basically all forced to rely on charity for their entire existence, because the other 250 people decided to just hate the fuck out of them because they wanted a taxcut.

You are from a completely different planet, just landed and have had to experience none of these things.


A) who the fuck are you to comment?
B) what the fuck do you know about reality or bias?

Meth ruins lives.

Holy shit

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:17 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:09 pm This thread though. It’s just begging for political shit fights.

We have enough such threads surely.

I’m not even going to mention my brainwashing of choice

But I agree that multiple sources has to be a sensible strategy. PR and NPR are part of that if you like to push the envelope

Brainwashing of choice is a great phrase.

Though when we steer towards twitter are we actually better.

I’m just so outraged. I don’t even know where to direct it. Or why I’m outraged.

There are only four (sensible) global news sources: Reuter’s, AFP, AP and BBC. Most international news you read or see in papers and tv channels is sourced from these.

National, regional and local are different, though a lot of national news comes through the big 4 anyway.

Personally, I think they’re all reliable enough.

Denny Crane wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:20 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:00 pm None of the above, gave up reading papers for news decades ago and don't believe believe the TV channels beyond the fact that something has happened. Everything else is simply sensationalised opinion.

+1

+2

NPR, (the other one),. I also enjoy The Onion and the the Babylon Bee but will switch to Fox when they get too serious.

I would just echo the sentiment that its important to have multiple sources of info, the more the merrier and the more diverse the better. Since lots of journalism tends to be, by inclination left leaning it is absolutely imperative to correct that with right wing stuff.

BBC, the Guardian and NYT fairly well cover the mainstream/left side of the equation imo. I always seem to come across National Review articles that are pretty decent and I make a point of catching Tucker Carlson's stuff on Fox because if nothing else he gives you a different perspective that tends to go against the mainstream grain. There are also quite a few right wing accounts on twitter who flag stuff up that is either under the radar or being unreported or ignored in the MSM.

If you don't commit to a variety of different sources and move out of the echo chambers that currently exist in media coverage I think you are going to have massive blindspots and areas of ignorance.

Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC, AP

It's less about 'sources' than practicing what Noam Chomsky calls "intellectual self defense". Paying attention to all the biases and underlying assumptions in any form of journalism, and subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny.

Even if you have no time for Chomsky and his ideas, surely this is a good approach.

Denny Crane wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:20 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:00 pm None of the above, gave up reading papers for news decades ago and don't believe believe the TV channels beyond the fact that something has happened. Everything else is simply sensationalised opinion.

+1

How on earth do you choose who to vote for?

"My dad voted for so and so......"

Plim wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:02 pm There are only four (sensible) global news sources: Reuter’s, AFP, AP and BBC. Most international news you read or see in papers and tv channels is sourced from these.

National, regional and local are different, though a lot of national news comes through the big 4 anyway.

Personally, I think they’re all reliable enough.

BBC is not unbiased. It’s full PC slanted.

BBC, Guardian, Economist for world news.

I used to enjoy Al Jazeera but not so much in recent years.

Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs for more thought-out articles.

Chrysoprase wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:36 pm Google News is a good aggregator, you can tweak it to show/hide sources you're less interested in, like the red tops.

It does mean giving info to Google about your browsing habits, but I doubt there are any online news sites that dont harvest your info.

Me too.
PR and here are usually my starting point for most international news then Google then social media.
Tbh honest I like social media comments in regards to news so long as you read enough to balance the opinions.

This method has it's drawback as I miss a lot of local news. I can't tell you what's been in the front page of the local newspaper coz I never read it.

None of them, and all of them. Let's face it, they are all full of it so it is best to read all of them if a story interests you, including the national ones of the related places and then try to decipher the truth. Mix it up with some good independent media sources and the truth maybe found between the lot.
To say the BBC, AJ, CNN, France 24 etc.. and leave it at that is a very wrong approach to having the first idea what is going on in the world

Galtsdrift wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:16 am None of them, and all of them. Let's face it, they are all full of it so it is best to read all of them if a story interests you, including the national ones of the related places and then try to decipher the truth. Mix it up with some good independent media sources and the truth maybe found between the lot.
To say the BBC, AJ, CNN, France 24 etc.. and leave it at that is a very wrong approach to having the first idea what is going on in the world

You have time to read all news sources

Are there any independent media sources you would recommend? In my experience they tend to be quite small scale so are subject to the world view of a small number of people. Some of course provide a platform for freelance journalists, but they can be a bit niche in their coverage.