0
16

[–] CasualApiphobia 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Slightly off-topic, but I want to make a note that these bullshit news sources aren't without their value even if you want to seek out unbiased/accurate news. I find that reading sites my friends and family read help me keep in touch with why they hold the opinions that they do, why they support various arguments, etc, and knowing where biases come from helps me keep them out from my own life (or at least I try).

0
0

[–] Genghis_Khan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This is a great point. You'll simply never have a consistently unbiased news source as long as humans are the journalists.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
10

[–] OftenTooRude 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The BBC is also quite biased, but in its own way, and maybe not as much as your average US network. Reuters' behaviour w/r/t (pro-)war reporting is kind of disgusting. Reuters absolutely DOES spin things – though that spin is achieved more through filtering what is or isn't fit to report. [If I'm leaving out the AP in my criticism, it's not because I have that much more faith in them, it's only because I don't have evidence against them handy, so I'm leaving it at caveat emptor.] Unfortunately I don't know a good alternative. Some years back I would have said Al Jazeera, but they've also been co-opted (there was an actual scandal about this a few years ago when this came to light).

There's no single unambiguously "known good" news network that I would recommend unreservedly.

The best I can recommend is to use multiple sources, and whenever there's anything us-vs-them involved, always, ALWAYS bend over backwards to find out what the other side's actual viewpoint is, and really probe the question whether "they" could be right and "we" might be the baddies. If both sides are measured by the same standards, without any taken-for-granted "but we're the good guys" premises, do "we" still come out ahead? (Questions like these allowed me to notice for example that w/r/t to Russia/Putin, reddit is now a bastion of American Conservatism, where users are very heavily propagandised. Shout-out to the boys and gals at Edwards AFB.)

The problem with the multiple source approach is, it takes a lot of time, and the average viewer doesn't have that – which works in favour of those who pull the wool over the people's eyes.

It helps to have a framework of understanding. Read/view Chomsky books/talks to develop the requisite critical mindset. Protip: Ask cui bono. And again, go out of your way to listen to "the other side" – no matter how much people may sneer at you for "actually watching", say, Press TV or RT or CCTV, etc. When and how much such contempt is warranted is for you to find out. Another protip: Business press and established, quality conservative press (think CEO, not teabagger) can sometimes feature surprising honesty, because they don't always sugarcoat things – no need, since their typical readership is already firmly on their side. So what they write can be quite revealing if you have a framework of understanding.

tl;dr: Instead of watching CNN, consider reading The Economist.

0
3

[–] catechumen 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

These are the kind of posts that are absolute gold to me. Thank you. I'm immersed in that gentleman's talk. If you can think of any sparsely reported news stories that the world overlooked, please drop by and post them to /v/UnderReported!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Lucifer_L 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ha, Reuters and AP most certainly spin quite a lot of things.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] schrodingers_opossum 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Keep in mind though that Google shows you links based on previous viewing habits, so it basically shows you the results it thinks you want to see.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
7

[–] gnosticmike 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago 

From the The Young Turks Network are: Secular Talk, The David Pakman Show, The Lip TV, LipTV2, Think Tank, The Point with Ana Kasparian, Nerd Alert, and TYT Nation among others.

 

From other sources on YouTube: Acronym TV, The Stream by Al Jazeera America, AJ+, BBC America, Bloomberg Business, David Seaman, Democracy Now!, FAIR TV, Free Speech TV, Fusion, Green World Rising, Heartland Tube, IN THE NOW, John Iadarola, Julie Borowski, Last Week Tonight, Leslie Marshall, Media Matters 4 America, Mises Media, Netroots Nation, New America, Next News Network, Participant Media, PBS News Hour, pivot, Punk Rock Libertarians, Real Time with Bill Maher, reason TV, Ring of Fire Radio, RT, RT America, Rubin Report, RYOT, SyrianGirlpartisan, Take Part, The Guardian, The New York Times. The Richard Fowler Show, The Undercurrent, The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, thelibertarienne, The Real News Network, theresident, thomhartmann, tpmtv (Talking Points Memo), Truthloader, Vice, Vice News, Voices of Liberty | Liberty-Minded Multi-Channel Network, Watching the Hawks on RT, We Act Radio, and WorldViewShow.

 

That only covers my YouTube subscriptions. I have dozens more email / newsletter / websites other than what is listed above. The Internet is now your Global News Source, my friend. (Oh, and Voat, of course!)

0
2

[–] GeorgeBurns 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Bill Maher drives me to rage, The New York Times has big issues, and The Guardian is usually great, but mysteriously didn't cover the JTRIG leaks at all.

0
1

[–] gnosticmike 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

See what you think of The Intercept. The Intercept is an online publication launched in February 2014 by First Look Media, the news organization created and funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.[2] Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill are the editors. via Wikipedia.

3
0

[–] Thrillh0 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

+1 for The Young Turks and Democracy Now! I feel like I would be well informed if I listened to nothing but those two shows. Great online news programs, though obviously liberal. Also since were mentioning online news, Citizen Radio is a great news / comedy podcast.

0
8

[–] PoopToaster 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

TYT has gone full SJW lately. They're pretty awesome for the most part, but they're on the bandwagon of everything being bigoted if it's slightly or possibly offensive.

0
7

[–] imp 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Whatdoesitmean.com

0
6

[–] Vercingetorix [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Whatdoesitmean.com

Sweet Jesus.

0
2

[–] P_Hound 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't even know what to make of that site.

3
5

[–] Genghis_Khan 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

Depending on where you live, your local NPR station might be a pretty good source. There is a slight liberal bias, but the content is substantive and there is never vitriol or vacuous bullshit.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] spets1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I read democracy now as well. Its really good

0
1

[–] GeorgeBurns 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I used to love NPR, now much of their coverage makes me wants to scream "That's really all you have to say about this?!"

It's just like you said, you nailed it. If you pay attention, all they do is repeat the official line, but in such a way that makes it seem calm, rational, and reasonable.

I don't think NPR has changed much, I can just see through it now.

0
1

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Fair.org does regular coverage of NPR and sometimes does extensive studies.

If you are looking for good information on media, listen to the weekly program Counterspin.

That corporate and foundation money releases toxins everywhere it goes. NPR is not exempt.

2
1

[–] PoopToaster 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Aside from the clickbait and sensationalized stuff, the truth tends to have a liberal bias.

0
0

[–] Ulluses 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

NPR at least knows they have a liberal bias and try to fight it in the reporting. Most of the news isn't too bad unless they rush it out after a major event.

0
0

[–] Agath0n 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You can also access their programs online, so it doesn't neccesarily require a good local station although that is nice to have.

0
4

[–] GeorgeBurns 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Try Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast. It's more analysis than news, but the analysis is generally insightful and spot on.

0
3

[–] penisse 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Try the opposite views, like rt.com, al jazeera, etc.

Then mix all with http://whatreallyhappened.com and make your own opinion.

0
1

[–] Calvin 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Is that a time traveling website from 1992?

0
1

[–] penisse 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The contents is quite up-to-date. Been there since Sep12th 2001.

load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)