Where do you all get your news from?

I'm completely satisfied with my news sources. I'm very-well informed and know what's going on locally, nationally and globally. And I'm sure I'm getting the real scoop. I can filter out any possible overdone opinion. It takes a lotta time daily to keep up with what's really going on. I also can dope out what is pure lies and not actual news. I'm retired and can work it into my schedule. But sadly I cannot divulge my news sources because it would unleash a E36 M3-show that would close this thread down in a New York coronavirus minute.  Oops!

Good info. I'm particularly surprised to see reddit mentioned so frequently. 

Let's summarize where we are at this point...

I just browse Google or see news from my Facebook newsfeed, but of course, I only read from credible sources like BBC, Reuters, NYT, and more. Reddit is a good source of what's trendy nowadays, what I love about it is the fact that you get to share your thought with the members. 

In reply to RevRico :

RT? Read what you want, but you know that's straight up Russian government owned and operated right? It's not even like a biased news source it's literally a government mouthpiece. 

I usually read/hear NPR (and therefore some BBC), The Atlantic, NYT, WSJ. 

I think the key point is to utilize multiple sources. Any single source will be biased; people are biased, no matter how objective they might try to be, and relying on a single set of people who make up a news organization leaves one at the mercy of their collective biases. Consult multiple sources and make up your own mind based on the best evidence available. Yes, it's work.

Gary said:

I'm completely satisfied with my news sources. I'm very-well informed and know what's going on locally, nationally and globally. And I'm sure I'm getting the real scoop. I can filter out any possible overdone opinion. It takes a lotta time daily to keep up with what's really going on. I also can dope out what is pure lies and not actual news. I'm retired and can work it into my schedule. But sadly I cannot divulge my news sources because it would unleash a E36 M3-show that would close this thread down in a New York coronavirus minute.  Oops!

my sentiments persactly.....I've been in time out here for other opinions and do not want to repeat.....got yur back..peace out....

Pravda

CBC. (read the site, but Radio One has some of the best new around.  https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-63-the-current

AP

REUTERS 

GLOBE AND MAIL

THE GUARDIAN

For some decently informed international comentary, check out Gwynn Dyer. 

I don't.  Haven't in years.  Weather is on my phone and I follow the local police and county sheriff on FB. 

In reply to Nick Comstock :

You bring up a good point. I know cops, i dont need the news. 
 

Also is it odd that the first thing i think when i see a persons news source is their political affiliation?

I scan the mainstream media from time to time to see what the current narrative is, but have long since lost faith in the accuracy of the reporting. There are a lot of citizen journalist picking up the slack these days. James Corbett is someone I have followed for almost a decade. He puts forth a very coherent look at global politics. The No Agenda show is a long running podcast that takes a twice weekly stab at deconstructing the mainstream media in an entertaining way.  Canary Cry News talk is another show that takes an alternative view at current events that resonates with me. I just can't get behind the vast majority of "reputable" news outlets as I find more propaganda then honest to goodness reporting. Not too surprising I suppose when you look at the massive amount of consolidation that has happened in the last decade. We have what, 6 major corporations owning that bulk of all media outlets in our country? And with the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act less than a decade ago it is perfectly legal for our own country to use propaganda against American citizens. The amount of censorship that has happened in the last 6 months on the major online information sources: Google, Youtube (same company), Facebook ect. has been truly staggering. The search results returned have changed most noticeably, and it is no secret as these particular corporations are upfront about how they are shaping the information that is available. I find a much higher quality of investigative journalism from individuals these days than from any sanctioned media outlet. 

bearmtnmartin said:

I canceled my paper subscription, and have tried several digital subscription services. I have gone to the NYT, and several Canadian national services, but after the introductory rate they jump up to what I was paying to have someone drop an actual inkstained copy at my door every morning. I want all the info, and good essays which I most like to read, but I expect a savings over the paper version. I am somewhat Conservative, but have no problem reading the other side, although I quickly grew sick of the NYT who will go out of business when Trump is gone for lack of story ideas. On the flip side far right conservatism picks me as well. So I am looking for suggestions for a reasonably unaligned, full coverage news service delivered to my inbox. To be clear, I have no problem paying for news. I would like to pay around $10.00 to $15.00 per month which seems a reasonable discount to me over the print version. 

It looks like you aren't asking about TV news, but actual written word. I'll suggest getting your local or regional paper to know what's happening around you and treat all of the major political news as either opinion pieces or outright lies, no matter who writes it or which way it slants. Read it all, be entertained by it, and choose to believe whatever you sense is right. For TV and radio I am inclined to believe brand 'X', but I often switch to brand 'Y' to hear their tone and see if their rants make any sense. The times that I have been a direct observer of news that gets reported have taught me that even 'objective' reporting is often wrong about facts.

dculberson (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to RevRico :

RT? Read what you want, but you know that's straight up Russian government owned and operated right? It's not even like a biased news source it's literally a government mouthpiece. 

Yes, and as such, if you want to know what Russia's perspective is on something (it's getting its hands in a lot of things these days), what would be the best source?  RT!

Thus, it is can be a very valuable source of news.... of course you need to be VERY aware of its bias.

In fact, this just inspired me to look for an English Chinese new source.  Looks like ecns.cn is one. Do I think it is in anyway independent from the Chinese government, no way! Some fun stuff on there though!

Perspective is a good thing.

I tend to just watch youtube videos these days. 

I know this isn't really "news", whatever that is today, but I can't say enough good things about these two on this show, their popularity has been taking off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MJcRVxP2Qw

Put me in the npr camp.

I suck at local news.

I, too, am an avid NPR listener, much to the chagrin of my family.

Honestly I'm surprised to see so many fellow public radio listeners here.

There's an important distinction that should be made in this conversation regarding the difference between reporting and commentary. The narrow definition of the former has very clear standards that should be applied - not that they always are, especially these days, but it's important to know what they are. Read Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men for a good example of what actual investigative reporting looks like (no political motivation in this suggestion, just a good, accessible source for this sort of thing).

Commentary, especially by people with no journalistic training and no obligation to editors, is worth what you pay for it at most, and usually less than that. The internet has made for a morass of commentary, and to their lasting discredit, much of the proper media has willingly sunk into it.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Agree entirely.  How do you classify John Oliver?   His commentary is more fact-based than CNN in many cases. 

Also point out that without real news reporters, where opinion people (sincere ones, not propaganda repeaters) get their information.  What happens when they are gone?  Our local paper, the Sacramento Bee which is a McClatchy that declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago.  Now what?

btw, I stopped watching TV at least 10 years ago, and reading the newspaper.  I used to listen to NPR when I had a commute.

I think a good rule may be that if your online "news" has a comments section, its probably more entertainment than "news". 

Keith Tanner said:

Ars Technica. It's the news I'm interested in.

This is actually the news site I visit most, but it does not cover everything, and it also covers some stuff I couldn't care less about.  My bookmark actually goes to the Science section of the site.

For other stuff, I listen to NPR if I am not in the middle of an audiobook (currently ~38 hours into Shogun, so I'm on a bit of a break :) ).  Local NPR station has BBC Newshour so I get a bit of that if I am listening during the day.  I will read AP or Reuters also.  

I watch clips from the Daily Show and John Oliver, but those are more hilarious commentary than they are 'news'.  John Oliver does often back up his commentary with pretty serious facts though.

FARK.com. It's "news" curated by shiny happy people like y'all with entertaining fake headlines.

Otherwise a mixture of NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, Drudge, and Christian Science Monitor does the trick. I like a mixture of perspective.

I find John Oliver hilarious, but he is entertainment, not news.  Serious bias, major parts of the story left unsaid.

I watch him, but for the humor.

Last Week Tonight (Oliver) does some of the best / most interesting investigative journalism (pretty sad it takes what effectively is a comedy show to do that), but his obvious serious personal dislike for a certain person really colors his commentary / focus sometimes.

Frontline is another very good source for investigative journalism.  As with all, never assume full objectivism (it's almost impossible, especially in anything remotely political).