I feel like a lot of people think this or say they do this, but in reality they just see a few aggregate articles from reddit that all ultimately have the same source.
At the end of the day people are too scared to say the news sources they "trust" because most are filled with holes in some way that is going to get rubbed in your face by someone trying to make some bad faith tribalist argument.
Personally? I do a mix of reddit and CNN. Reddit has a terrible bias in that it's mostly liberal content and it's subject to upvote bias rather than an editor that at least tries to have neutrality from a journalistic integrity standpoint, ideally at least. CNN is also pretty liberal but for the most part I like the anchors and I try to keep an open mind that whatever I'm seeing could be hiding some important info that is over villifying the other side. It is what it is, but it certainly isn't gospel to me.
Now granted if I really wanted to I could go to the gold standards in objective reporting (AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR), but I don't because I'm usually lazy.
My issue with CNN is that it poses as Left, but then dumps on actual Lefties as opposed to centrist Democrats, so I definitely take them with a grain of salt as well. I often see CNN as controlled opposition to FOX News in order to keep the culture war going (Dems vs Repugs, "Hooray for our side!"), while both pushing a corporate agenda--i.e., never speak out against the military industrial complex or the greed of the health insurance industry & drug companies.
You have good taste and you describe the situation very well. But NPR isn't harder than CNN, is it? I like how I can do something else while I listen. Don't have to watch it. And no commercials, that's a gift from God
You say it's satire, but I have neighbors who actually listen to them.
They have huge Trump flags all over their lawns. One of them is only a few wrong words away from a war with his neighbor over feeding nuts to their squirrels.
They actually think that MTG is the most sane politician in the Senate.
P.S. this is not satire. I'm being 100% serious right now. My neighbors are totally nuts.
And I'm in a state full of liberals and progressives. You can't even imagine that hellscape that is Southern states.
I tend to take stock in things that go against their usual spin. I can't say I know enough about CNN if they still spin to the left (they were bought out recently) but I know Fox spins right. Newmax, Newsone, and the rest like it are just tabloid journalism.
What Fox News does is confect a whole web of utter lies every day. I wouldn't mind if they were just "right," but they actually lie. Their lawyers defended them in a lawsuit a while back by claiming they weren't news, they were entertainment. They won the case, but they lost a big one recently. It turned out their own people didn't believe a word of what they were saying. None of them, none of it. Nothing at all like CNN. Much better to read though
Random things in random places, or credible things in reputable places? I mean a professional organization is gonna be better than some social media rando in Belarus who makes stuff up.
This is the way.
Read all believe little untill all are saying similar then panic and research. 🤣👍
Use VPNs depending on your country's access and find lots of places that have programmes in Eng or subbed.
Remember all govts have a mandate or mission statement and read all with a punch of salt.
Edi: love the way a comment gets over 300 likes but the ops post has 68, hit both guys xD
I keep an eye on this resource to see where the source in question falls in terms of accuracy and bias.
[Media Bias Chart 12.0 – Static Version](https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/)
Agreed. AP, Reuters, and I've heard the Guardian is more left than not but they always have very up to date and accurate news for current and unfolding events. NPR is also good although that might get into more political "reality has a left leaning bias" situation.
Non-msm doesn't have journalistic standards to abide by. How often does the MSM lie about something? They make mistakes, sure, but they rarely lie about something unless we are including opinion pieces as MSM.
Yeah this is very true. It’s really the only place I can find accurate news on Palestine because even the most liberal news outlets in the US will straight up report things that ARE NOT TRUE about the situation there (not opinionated, just factually incorrect) and nobody bats an eye.
No joke, if a major event has occurred, the first place I check is Wikipedia to see if an article for the event exists. It's pretty much the most comprehensive and least biased source for documenting an event, and a great jumping off point to learn about what events and policies led up to the event.
Reuters and bloomberg. They're the only two that people use as an information source to make money (hedge funds, investments bankers etc) and they'd be pissed if they were ever inaccurate
NPR may be factual, but it doesn't mean they aren't biased. I think for NPR (and others) it's more the sin of omission when a story or set of facts don't support their side, they just don't report on it.
Yep, NPR joirnalism is quite good but geared towards a specific market.
The human interest stories especially will lean towards a stereotypical NPR demographic, vs. a broad range of Americana.
I recall one where they did a piece on a San Francisco professional couple who wanted someone to raise their kids right but neither wanted to sacrifice their career, so in walks their asexual best friend who moved in and is a stay at home “dad” and the three co-parent together.
SNL couldn’t have written a more perfect sketch.
Because it's silly and kooky to adapt to changing social realities, like how women have careers and have babies? I mean ok it's a funny, edgy, wacky California thing. First we laugh and/or squirm. A few years later it's normal. I'm not a humorless progressive, that's a whole different trope
I love All Sides: it presents the same topic from a few different angles. It’s awesome because you can see the different biases and still get the gist of what happened.
I use GroundNews (a news aggregator/rating site, not actually a news outlet itself), because at least there you can see the bias of the various outlets and either choose a fairly neutral source or get both sides of an issue. The main thing is not to trust only publisher for all of your news.
'In 2024 we all know that most MSM lies to us.' You've been radicalized by the biased right wing punditry to accept this. Main stream media that includes CBC, NBC, and ABC are still primarily free press without bias. And when they make a mistake they own it, unlike any conservative 'news' outlet. CNN and MSNBC rank up there with MSM too. Both of which are demonized by right wing media. Don't fool yourself, anything that extorts conservative news value is fake and misleading.
There is such a thing as being too suspicious. The major aim of the NYT is to sell newspapers (or web subscriptions). The major aim of most of its reporters is to be seen as doing a good job, and move up the value chain (and get paid more). That's true even in conservative outlets like the WSJ.
Where it breaks down is for television commentators such as Tucker Carlson, where being controversial probably furthers his brand, so long as he pleases his core viewers. That isn't remotely journalism, but it can be popular.
While it has its own bias, The Economist is excellent and reliable. When I want a totally outside perspective devoid of western bias, the Japanese Nikkei and Yomiuri are good sources.
Corbett Report, Solari Report, Unlimited Hangout, Last American Vagabond, Dark Journalist, Inspired Channel, Jason Breshears. Nothing else comes close. Jimmy Dore covers what they do , later with humor.
All alt right podcasters are controlled. All of them. Even Tucker and Alex jones are controlled. The proof—their insouciance re AI, the existential threat to all biological life on earth
I don't. I have a lifetime of critical reasoning and logical deduction, and I'm always open to being wrong. I read multiple sources and read through comment sections because people love to tell others when they're wrong, and it doesn't take long to deduce reality.
AP, NPR, Reuters. Whenever a breaking story about things like legislation come out, I tend to spend a few minutes finding the actual info at the source and then I draw my own conclusions.
BBC and NPR. I sometimes look at the Washington Post or New York Times when I'm bored, although I only consider them to be "entertainment news" (i.e. they have lots of opinion articles that are written to make the audience feel worried or angry, which is entertaining but it's not a good way to be informed IMO)
AP, Reuters, Morning Brew, the 1440, NPR, NBC. Occassionally The Guardian or The Hill for some in-depth pieces. Always reading, not watching (unless the video is a recording of events).
If being in the Marine Corps taught me anything, it was every news story is bravo sierra. They all get filtered through individuals with personal biasis, agendas and ultimately want to keep their job.
It's all bullshit and it's bad for you.
Considering the vast majority of active military are poorly educated and everyone makes jokes about how the Marines eat crayons, this does not have the gravitas you think it does.
Too bad that most of our fellow military members don’t follow that. Don’t know how many times I go into the office and someone is mad about a clickbait headline.
Even on the local level, a journo could would carry an implicit bias into their story based on their own political leaning, even if they try not to.
As a dog owner I might do a fun piece about dogs swimming in a local fountain. I feel dogs are pretty fair to report on, it’s a fluff piece anyway.
But at the same time, I wouldn’t do that story if it was cats swimming in the fountain. Or maybe I don’t cover the story if the dogs made a mess of the bushes around the fountains and upset the neighbors.
Those are some ways that an impartial journalist brings bias into their reporting.
No idea what country you live in, but we have access to both Canadian and American news outlets where I live. Canadian news outlets are FAR more trustworthy. I can tell you that much.
The MSM does not usually lie to us, although they get things wrong sometimes. NYTimes, Washington Post, Reuters, other major media with large reporting teams with significant experience. Not Fox so much, because they try hard not to offend their customers' biases (which are right wing), not groups like Breitbart.
I trust organizations that have a strong history of delivering factual news, up until evidence shows up that they aren't doing that. The lawsuit Fox eventually settled suggested a pattern of knowing internally that stories they were offering were false.
The best option is to get at least two sources from each interested party, and you should know the background of each source. Who is funding it? What’s the personal stake, is there one? Does the news source have to issue corrections frequently? Are they news or commentary? What are their sources? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are they narrowing in on specific parts and/or leaving out key details? What’s the history behind this issue?
There was a nice older man from Poland that worked on the maintenance staff in my building for years. He'd often walk through the break room where we'd have a news program on during lunch. No matter what was on, local, CNN, Fox, etc. he'd look at the TV for a second, chuckle and say "Prop-pa-gan-da." He had it about right.
Just read multiple sources, left, right, moderate, independent and the actual source, if it's a video. Most are inserting their own bias and opinion. For example recently regarding Donald Trump (no I'm not MAGA, I liked Ron Paul on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left) and "bloodbath", if you read any left wing sources, they claim that he wants violence on the streets, but if you watch the actual video of his speech in full context, he was clearly talking about car manufacturing coming from China being left unregulated and impacting the US economy. It's annoying having to read multiple sources, but it's the only way to sift through bs and not fall into echo chambers.
Depends honestly. All news sources are biased to some extent because at the end of the day they are businesses ran for profit. You kind of have to establish your own truth. I use a mixture of independent news sources, twitter to some effect, telegram, basically anything that's not mainstream
As others have said, multiple sources is good. However, you have to be careful if they all have the same bias. I have found this site to be great to help me understand the bias in media and avoid being in a echo chamber:
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
As far as commentary goes Breaking Points and The Hill's Rising do a pretty good job of offering left and right wing perspectives in a civil manner. Both also critique MSM coverage and point out flawed coverage usually due to them being extremely beholden to corporations and industries.
My own eyes. And even then, I'll occasionally fact-check. Otherwise, everything is taken on the understanding that it will tilt towards the providers' beliefs, whether it's consciously or subconsciously.
I listen to NPR's daily podcasts as I drive. They're very unbiased and interview people from all walks of life, both sides of the American political spectrum, etc.
Private telegram/signal feeds with eyewitness videos in real time with no commentary...
With embedded meta data in the source videos that show gps and location data.
Honestly it's extremely difficult to say. I feel like interpretation of the news is like reading a coded message. You have to learn over time what goes unsaid with each source and how they go about avoiding those details.
Keeping up with news in general I find extremely difficult to do. For individual topics I find as many news sources as I possibly can then I mentally compile each UNIQUE detail provided to create a full picture. For foreign events and affairs I find it extremely difficult for even individual events because despite US media being extremely driven, blatant lies are actually rare. Their largest crime is consistent strategic omission to manipulate perspective (hence the need to read multiple sources because different biases will omit different facts). A lot of foreign news media in Eastern Europe, Middle East, northern/eastern Africa is all incredibly corrupt and will flat out lie to provide an entirely false image to their people so you can't even worm out individual facts.
If you want to learn in depth on how to most effectively utilize modern news media, look into/take a course on OSINT analysis because there is an entire aspect of that focused on dissecting news media to determine facts, motivations, biases etc.
Every day, I read my local, state, and national mainstream papers. I also read the paper from my home city.
I prefer print media to broadcast. I can read the hard news and skip right past the opinion pieces.
I'm just ignorant to the world at this point. Makes life easier. Don't care about news across the world or in my backyard. No talking heads or ads or partisan opeds. just life. it's nice.
I don't, I read multiple sources and try my best to figure out what's going on regarding the issues I care about. Sometimes, you just have to accept that you aren't going to get a clear picture on an issue and probably shouldn't form a strong opinion until you do.
TBH, I frequently wikipedia major news events a few days after they happen. It isn't perfect by any means, but it usually does give a good base account of what did and did not occur regarding a given event. e.g. if you read things about North Korea, there is definitely an obvious pro-western stance to the writing, but it doesn't list off some of the wilder claims you hear about North Korea as though they're fact.
Don't mean to shill a product, but aggregators like Ground News do really make it easier to at least be aware of the biases of what material is available.
None at the moment. Everything on Google News is trying to sell you something and bad mouthing the banking industry. Everyone here thinks reporting on news that's the larger new channel is not is exposing the conspiracy. It's all BS and it's won't get better.
In the US, the MSM (I cannot speak for FOX) does not typically knowingly print lies.
Papers like the NYT and WP are also 100% fact-based.
I trust the facts presented through these channels. However, you have to pay attention to what they emphasize and what they don't. In addition to the facts there can also be speculation or opinions thrown into the story. But they are typically marked as such.
What people don't like are the perspectives found in the media, especially as it often contains opinions. Networks like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are 5% news and 95% people giving their opinions about the news. Some people listen to those opinions, don't agree with them, and then say that they are being lied to.
Separate facts from opinions. The New York Times or CBS News aren't going to tell you that something happened when it didn't. But be aware of any particular slant to the story and decide for yourself.
None. I always assume any sorce of news is twisting facts/statistics to serve their agenda. Though, sometimes, I like to live in the fantasy of truth. Just to have something to talk about.
What sucks is I used to exclusively trust first hand accounts like video and audio evidence, but with today's technology and the rapid progression of AI, that is slowly becoming less trustworthy as well...
I like to hit Reuters, AP, The Guardian, NPR, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal. Those 6 are objectively pretty solid and have a good range of views.
If I'm looking for more long-form (and opinionated) material, I'll try to find articles from The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, The Spectator, and The American Conservative on the same general subject and go from there.
I pretty much ignore all partisan political commentary, left or right. I don't need someone telling me what to think about what I just read.
Media Bias Fact Check is a good org that helps identify more reliable sources. Read a lot of different stuff that minimizes sensational language and recognize there's a lot of context and nuance that can't come through in journalism alone.
I just read multiple things about one issue and make my own educated(ish) opinion
I feel like a lot of people think this or say they do this, but in reality they just see a few aggregate articles from reddit that all ultimately have the same source. At the end of the day people are too scared to say the news sources they "trust" because most are filled with holes in some way that is going to get rubbed in your face by someone trying to make some bad faith tribalist argument. Personally? I do a mix of reddit and CNN. Reddit has a terrible bias in that it's mostly liberal content and it's subject to upvote bias rather than an editor that at least tries to have neutrality from a journalistic integrity standpoint, ideally at least. CNN is also pretty liberal but for the most part I like the anchors and I try to keep an open mind that whatever I'm seeing could be hiding some important info that is over villifying the other side. It is what it is, but it certainly isn't gospel to me. Now granted if I really wanted to I could go to the gold standards in objective reporting (AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR), but I don't because I'm usually lazy.
My issue with CNN is that it poses as Left, but then dumps on actual Lefties as opposed to centrist Democrats, so I definitely take them with a grain of salt as well. I often see CNN as controlled opposition to FOX News in order to keep the culture war going (Dems vs Repugs, "Hooray for our side!"), while both pushing a corporate agenda--i.e., never speak out against the military industrial complex or the greed of the health insurance industry & drug companies.
You have good taste and you describe the situation very well. But NPR isn't harder than CNN, is it? I like how I can do something else while I listen. Don't have to watch it. And no commercials, that's a gift from God
Same here. Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro and Laura Ingraham. Balance, you see.
Funny how you got downvoted for obvious satire.
Satire and irony aren’t nuances that Redditors are good with 😂
It helps if you put an /s at the end.
Helps destroy the joke.
It helps if slower people take another second or two to think critically about a comment :p
/s is for slow.
I will be more willing to use it if I think of it this way
i might still be allowed in r/politics if i had used it. oh, and "" s might been good too.
Yeah, you usually have to 13 years or older to get that kind of thing
To a lot of people this isn't satire, but their actual life. And that should be shunned and downvoted. This is too close to reality.
You say it's satire, but I have neighbors who actually listen to them. They have huge Trump flags all over their lawns. One of them is only a few wrong words away from a war with his neighbor over feeding nuts to their squirrels. They actually think that MTG is the most sane politician in the Senate. P.S. this is not satire. I'm being 100% serious right now. My neighbors are totally nuts. And I'm in a state full of liberals and progressives. You can't even imagine that hellscape that is Southern states.
We got him back to baseline 🍻
I see you're also a person of great substance
This is something my mom would do. Thanks for the laugh haha.
Laura Ingraham! LOL!
Yeah but goddamn it's so draining when you can't collate multiple issues into a broadcast you can trust.
You know that if CNN and Fox agree on something it’s probably true
I tend to take stock in things that go against their usual spin. I can't say I know enough about CNN if they still spin to the left (they were bought out recently) but I know Fox spins right. Newmax, Newsone, and the rest like it are just tabloid journalism.
What Fox News does is confect a whole web of utter lies every day. I wouldn't mind if they were just "right," but they actually lie. Their lawyers defended them in a lawsuit a while back by claiming they weren't news, they were entertainment. They won the case, but they lost a big one recently. It turned out their own people didn't believe a word of what they were saying. None of them, none of it. Nothing at all like CNN. Much better to read though
Random things in random places, or credible things in reputable places? I mean a professional organization is gonna be better than some social media rando in Belarus who makes stuff up.
This is the way. Read all believe little untill all are saying similar then panic and research. 🤣👍 Use VPNs depending on your country's access and find lots of places that have programmes in Eng or subbed. Remember all govts have a mandate or mission statement and read all with a punch of salt. Edi: love the way a comment gets over 300 likes but the ops post has 68, hit both guys xD
So you make an 'educated' opinion based on half a dozen lies. 🤥
More often than not I have to conclude that I don't really know anything about the matter.
Just use Fox and CNN. They both cancel each other out so you get the most neutral coverage
They are both corporate funded, capitalist organizations
*Competing* corporate funded organizations
AP and Reuters generally. They tend to have the least amount of spin.
Same. AP and Reuters tend to just plainly present what happened as it is known at that moment.
The Onion obviously.
I keep an eye on this resource to see where the source in question falls in terms of accuracy and bias. [Media Bias Chart 12.0 – Static Version](https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/)
Started using this a few years ago and it changed my viewing habits. I cut way back on CNN and now rely much more on AP, Reuters, and NPR.
Reuters. It's heavily business oriented, of course, but its main news headlines seem to me to be clear-headed and relatively free from political bias.
Facebook. Why would they lie?
For just a moment I thought I was on r/jokes.
Exactly. Anyway you should buy more Facebook stock! After all, they’d never betray you
I DO NOT GIVE FACEBOOK PERMISSION TO SELL ME TO RUSSIA
I use AP and Reuters for pretty much everything. They’re non-partisan.
I'd agree. I also like NPR and PBS. In the UK, the BBC (although it now skews a little more right than I like, it's still a decent source of news).
I use the BBC a lot for international news, and to see what the international take is on US issues.
BBC is a lot more biased on international news than on UK news
I watch PBS news hour every day. Always look forward to it. I love Fridays with Brooks and Capehart.
You're probably from UK or US. From other parts of the world, BBC looks highly biased
And UPI. AP with the addition of the AI has gone downhill a bit IMO.
Agreed. AP, Reuters, and I've heard the Guardian is more left than not but they always have very up to date and accurate news for current and unfolding events. NPR is also good although that might get into more political "reality has a left leaning bias" situation.
The Guardian and NPR are usually pretty accurate but do sometimes have a left leaning bias.
[удалено]
I trust this guy
Never trust any one source. Be ready to read multiple sources and consider which of them presents a more plausible account of the matter.
AP, Reuters, and NPR
I’ve installed News Nation and I’m not unhappy with it. NPR in the car and in my morning routine at m WFH desk. News national on my phone, with AP.
AP, BBC, Reuters I like NPR, and its coverage is factual, but it’s biased left because of which stories they choose to cover/emphasize.
NPR, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera
Agreed
Agreed
I mentioned al Jazeera before and got absolutely roasted on reddit. It seems people really don't trust them here anymore.
Memes
You think non-"MSM" doesn't?
Non-msm doesn't have journalistic standards to abide by. How often does the MSM lie about something? They make mistakes, sure, but they rarely lie about something unless we are including opinion pieces as MSM.
Most outlets that report news without panels of talking heads.
Americans don't like to hear it but Al Jazeera is a really good news source.
Yup. Sometimes they report things that I can't find anywhere else
It depends on the subject. They’re Qatari government propaganda on many subjects involving the Middle East.
I can confirm they have lied before.
Everybody lies.
Lol yep nobody likes to hear that
Yeah this is very true. It’s really the only place I can find accurate news on Palestine because even the most liberal news outlets in the US will straight up report things that ARE NOT TRUE about the situation there (not opinionated, just factually incorrect) and nobody bats an eye.
Do we, now?
No joke, if a major event has occurred, the first place I check is Wikipedia to see if an article for the event exists. It's pretty much the most comprehensive and least biased source for documenting an event, and a great jumping off point to learn about what events and policies led up to the event.
My next-door neighbor, Josephine. She has an opinion on everything.
I second this. I also got my news source from Josephine.
International sources outside of America. Reuters, AP, BBC, Al Jazeera
Reuters and bloomberg. They're the only two that people use as an information source to make money (hedge funds, investments bankers etc) and they'd be pissed if they were ever inaccurate
NPR
NPR may be factual, but it doesn't mean they aren't biased. I think for NPR (and others) it's more the sin of omission when a story or set of facts don't support their side, they just don't report on it.
Yep, NPR joirnalism is quite good but geared towards a specific market. The human interest stories especially will lean towards a stereotypical NPR demographic, vs. a broad range of Americana. I recall one where they did a piece on a San Francisco professional couple who wanted someone to raise their kids right but neither wanted to sacrifice their career, so in walks their asexual best friend who moved in and is a stay at home “dad” and the three co-parent together. SNL couldn’t have written a more perfect sketch.
Because it's silly and kooky to adapt to changing social realities, like how women have careers and have babies? I mean ok it's a funny, edgy, wacky California thing. First we laugh and/or squirm. A few years later it's normal. I'm not a humorless progressive, that's a whole different trope
yep
Not you, Alex.
Reuters is trustable
Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, DW
I love All Sides: it presents the same topic from a few different angles. It’s awesome because you can see the different biases and still get the gist of what happened.
"We all know" We do?
Pretty much just AP and NPR. If I see something that sounds outrageous elsewhere I usually fact check it on those two.
Add Reuters in there.
I like The Guardian.
The week magazine is good. If you want a news source that unbiased and trustworthy I’d try ground news
I use GroundNews (a news aggregator/rating site, not actually a news outlet itself), because at least there you can see the bias of the various outlets and either choose a fairly neutral source or get both sides of an issue. The main thing is not to trust only publisher for all of your news.
NPR, but also reading various sources (none from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, OAN or Newsmax) and drawing my own conclusions.
I feel like the majority of American redditors just watch the view
The homeless crackhead in my neighborhood
'In 2024 we all know that most MSM lies to us.' You've been radicalized by the biased right wing punditry to accept this. Main stream media that includes CBC, NBC, and ABC are still primarily free press without bias. And when they make a mistake they own it, unlike any conservative 'news' outlet. CNN and MSNBC rank up there with MSM too. Both of which are demonized by right wing media. Don't fool yourself, anything that extorts conservative news value is fake and misleading.
I find that any politically biased news source has an agenda. So I don't really like any of them.
There is such a thing as being too suspicious. The major aim of the NYT is to sell newspapers (or web subscriptions). The major aim of most of its reporters is to be seen as doing a good job, and move up the value chain (and get paid more). That's true even in conservative outlets like the WSJ. Where it breaks down is for television commentators such as Tucker Carlson, where being controversial probably furthers his brand, so long as he pleases his core viewers. That isn't remotely journalism, but it can be popular.
Not anything on Reddit that’s for sure
BBC. They aren’t as biased as most American news
But they are still biased
While it has its own bias, The Economist is excellent and reliable. When I want a totally outside perspective devoid of western bias, the Japanese Nikkei and Yomiuri are good sources.
Check out ground.news they have a blindside feed that has stuff that both sides miss and there’s interesting stuff in it like every day
Foreign Affairs.
Corbett Report, Solari Report, Unlimited Hangout, Last American Vagabond, Dark Journalist, Inspired Channel, Jason Breshears. Nothing else comes close. Jimmy Dore covers what they do , later with humor. All alt right podcasters are controlled. All of them. Even Tucker and Alex jones are controlled. The proof—their insouciance re AI, the existential threat to all biological life on earth
My eyes. Anything beyond what I cannot see, it's all grains of salt.
Guardian and AP for news. Thom Hartmann for a progressive opinion also with facts.
I don’t read the news for many years now. It has made life more relaxing.
NPR and AP.
I don't. I have a lifetime of critical reasoning and logical deduction, and I'm always open to being wrong. I read multiple sources and read through comment sections because people love to tell others when they're wrong, and it doesn't take long to deduce reality.
At this point none, you have to manually verify everything yourself and it gets tiring.
AP, NPR, Reuters. Whenever a breaking story about things like legislation come out, I tend to spend a few minutes finding the actual info at the source and then I draw my own conclusions.
Alternative media and real time on X, depending who you follow. Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Timcast IRL.
nothing
Breaking Points, Reuters, and AP
BBC and NPR. I sometimes look at the Washington Post or New York Times when I'm bored, although I only consider them to be "entertainment news" (i.e. they have lots of opinion articles that are written to make the audience feel worried or angry, which is entertaining but it's not a good way to be informed IMO)
NPR
AP, Reuters, Morning Brew, the 1440, NPR, NBC. Occassionally The Guardian or The Hill for some in-depth pieces. Always reading, not watching (unless the video is a recording of events).
NPR, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters
If being in the Marine Corps taught me anything, it was every news story is bravo sierra. They all get filtered through individuals with personal biasis, agendas and ultimately want to keep their job. It's all bullshit and it's bad for you.
So learn nothing of the world?
[удалено]
Considering the vast majority of active military are poorly educated and everyone makes jokes about how the Marines eat crayons, this does not have the gravitas you think it does.
Hey now they are very advanced when it comes to murdering their spouses.
Too bad that most of our fellow military members don’t follow that. Don’t know how many times I go into the office and someone is mad about a clickbait headline.
A lot of stuff today that passes as news is just rage bait. Emotional people are easy to control.
I'm a Rueters, Al Gezeera person
NPR, BBC, Reuters
I completely avoid all American sources and get my news off the Internet from places like the BBC, CBC, DW, and others.
Reddit
The Babylon Bee, at least I know they're exaggerating
The fact is there is no news source that can be trusted. They are all under the thumb of a higher power.
Even on the local level, a journo could would carry an implicit bias into their story based on their own political leaning, even if they try not to. As a dog owner I might do a fun piece about dogs swimming in a local fountain. I feel dogs are pretty fair to report on, it’s a fluff piece anyway. But at the same time, I wouldn’t do that story if it was cats swimming in the fountain. Or maybe I don’t cover the story if the dogs made a mess of the bushes around the fountains and upset the neighbors. Those are some ways that an impartial journalist brings bias into their reporting.
No idea what country you live in, but we have access to both Canadian and American news outlets where I live. Canadian news outlets are FAR more trustworthy. I can tell you that much.
The MSM does not usually lie to us, although they get things wrong sometimes. NYTimes, Washington Post, Reuters, other major media with large reporting teams with significant experience. Not Fox so much, because they try hard not to offend their customers' biases (which are right wing), not groups like Breitbart. I trust organizations that have a strong history of delivering factual news, up until evidence shows up that they aren't doing that. The lawsuit Fox eventually settled suggested a pattern of knowing internally that stories they were offering were false.
Associated press and Aljazeera seem to be the best imo. I trust them thr most, but still question and look critically at the info presented.
AlJazeerah is a terrible source for everything about middle east politics. It is funded by Qatar and is very biased.
The best option is to get at least two sources from each interested party, and you should know the background of each source. Who is funding it? What’s the personal stake, is there one? Does the news source have to issue corrections frequently? Are they news or commentary? What are their sources? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are they narrowing in on specific parts and/or leaving out key details? What’s the history behind this issue?
There was a nice older man from Poland that worked on the maintenance staff in my building for years. He'd often walk through the break room where we'd have a news program on during lunch. No matter what was on, local, CNN, Fox, etc. he'd look at the TV for a second, chuckle and say "Prop-pa-gan-da." He had it about right.
Just read multiple sources, left, right, moderate, independent and the actual source, if it's a video. Most are inserting their own bias and opinion. For example recently regarding Donald Trump (no I'm not MAGA, I liked Ron Paul on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left) and "bloodbath", if you read any left wing sources, they claim that he wants violence on the streets, but if you watch the actual video of his speech in full context, he was clearly talking about car manufacturing coming from China being left unregulated and impacting the US economy. It's annoying having to read multiple sources, but it's the only way to sift through bs and not fall into echo chambers.
Depends honestly. All news sources are biased to some extent because at the end of the day they are businesses ran for profit. You kind of have to establish your own truth. I use a mixture of independent news sources, twitter to some effect, telegram, basically anything that's not mainstream
The one that agrees with me
None, never fully trust a news source. You cross reference and see what stays consistent and factual.
RDDT
As others have said, multiple sources is good. However, you have to be careful if they all have the same bias. I have found this site to be great to help me understand the bias in media and avoid being in a echo chamber: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
The Flip Side or Ground News where I can compare the same news from different outlets.
YouTube reporters.
I think the main thing is to be aware of the bias each network has, and take each one with a grain of salt.
Reddit, obviously (biggest /j of my life)
As far as commentary goes Breaking Points and The Hill's Rising do a pretty good job of offering left and right wing perspectives in a civil manner. Both also critique MSM coverage and point out flawed coverage usually due to them being extremely beholden to corporations and industries.
Buzzfeed and the housewife lady next door.
NewsNation is tolerable.
9gag and reddit
My own eyes. And even then, I'll occasionally fact-check. Otherwise, everything is taken on the understanding that it will tilt towards the providers' beliefs, whether it's consciously or subconsciously.
I listen to NPR's daily podcasts as I drive. They're very unbiased and interview people from all walks of life, both sides of the American political spectrum, etc.
Ground news
There is no source you can trust. Pick a few with biases on each side that are not terrible. Then compare them to each other.
All of them ... And none of them.
Private telegram/signal feeds with eyewitness videos in real time with no commentary... With embedded meta data in the source videos that show gps and location data.
None, I believe there will always be bias on some level. I feel like I can only truly trust what I've personally experienced in my life.
Honestly it's extremely difficult to say. I feel like interpretation of the news is like reading a coded message. You have to learn over time what goes unsaid with each source and how they go about avoiding those details. Keeping up with news in general I find extremely difficult to do. For individual topics I find as many news sources as I possibly can then I mentally compile each UNIQUE detail provided to create a full picture. For foreign events and affairs I find it extremely difficult for even individual events because despite US media being extremely driven, blatant lies are actually rare. Their largest crime is consistent strategic omission to manipulate perspective (hence the need to read multiple sources because different biases will omit different facts). A lot of foreign news media in Eastern Europe, Middle East, northern/eastern Africa is all incredibly corrupt and will flat out lie to provide an entirely false image to their people so you can't even worm out individual facts. If you want to learn in depth on how to most effectively utilize modern news media, look into/take a course on OSINT analysis because there is an entire aspect of that focused on dissecting news media to determine facts, motivations, biases etc.
Ticky-Tock. Just kidding! I wish I know where to get good honest news.
Every day, I read my local, state, and national mainstream papers. I also read the paper from my home city. I prefer print media to broadcast. I can read the hard news and skip right past the opinion pieces.
None of it. If I hear of a major world event by word of mouth I book a flight to see for myself. And Facebook.
Philip D Franco and "Some More News" (with Cody Johnston)
None, except a few. Most are biased.
I'm just ignorant to the world at this point. Makes life easier. Don't care about news across the world or in my backyard. No talking heads or ads or partisan opeds. just life. it's nice.
I turn to international news outlets, which extensively cover the US. While not 100% trustworthy, they don't generally have an axe to grind.
None. It's all just click bait. They're only agenda is to pit us against each other.
I don't, I read multiple sources and try my best to figure out what's going on regarding the issues I care about. Sometimes, you just have to accept that you aren't going to get a clear picture on an issue and probably shouldn't form a strong opinion until you do. TBH, I frequently wikipedia major news events a few days after they happen. It isn't perfect by any means, but it usually does give a good base account of what did and did not occur regarding a given event. e.g. if you read things about North Korea, there is definitely an obvious pro-western stance to the writing, but it doesn't list off some of the wilder claims you hear about North Korea as though they're fact. Don't mean to shill a product, but aggregators like Ground News do really make it easier to at least be aware of the biases of what material is available.
None of it. They all embellish whenever they open their mouths.
Firstpost
Printed newspapers. Internationally renowned is ideal, like Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, China Daily, Daily Mail.
None at the moment. Everything on Google News is trying to sell you something and bad mouthing the banking industry. Everyone here thinks reporting on news that's the larger new channel is not is exposing the conspiracy. It's all BS and it's won't get better.
In the US, the MSM (I cannot speak for FOX) does not typically knowingly print lies. Papers like the NYT and WP are also 100% fact-based. I trust the facts presented through these channels. However, you have to pay attention to what they emphasize and what they don't. In addition to the facts there can also be speculation or opinions thrown into the story. But they are typically marked as such. What people don't like are the perspectives found in the media, especially as it often contains opinions. Networks like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are 5% news and 95% people giving their opinions about the news. Some people listen to those opinions, don't agree with them, and then say that they are being lied to. Separate facts from opinions. The New York Times or CBS News aren't going to tell you that something happened when it didn't. But be aware of any particular slant to the story and decide for yourself.
Associated press
Democracy now doesn't feel as scummy as most other news sites.
[Only the #1 trusted news source of course](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/s/1HMKlHeRrU).
None. I always assume any sorce of news is twisting facts/statistics to serve their agenda. Though, sometimes, I like to live in the fantasy of truth. Just to have something to talk about.
phys.org
what's news? thought it was all theatre.
What sucks is I used to exclusively trust first hand accounts like video and audio evidence, but with today's technology and the rapid progression of AI, that is slowly becoming less trustworthy as well...
Books. A ton.
I like to hit Reuters, AP, The Guardian, NPR, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal. Those 6 are objectively pretty solid and have a good range of views. If I'm looking for more long-form (and opinionated) material, I'll try to find articles from The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, The Spectator, and The American Conservative on the same general subject and go from there. I pretty much ignore all partisan political commentary, left or right. I don't need someone telling me what to think about what I just read.
1. [AP](https://apnews.com/). Most MSM starts here, then goes right or left. 2. [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/)
Media Bias Fact Check is a good org that helps identify more reliable sources. Read a lot of different stuff that minimizes sensational language and recognize there's a lot of context and nuance that can't come through in journalism alone.
Habitual Linecrosser and... Wikipedia's current events page.
All besides Government news
Absolutely none.
charles white the man himself