Subject: My Recommendations
Author:
Posted on: 2017-09-16 00:18:00 UTC
In no particular order:
1. CNN (Probably best Cable News in the US)
2. BBC
3. Associate Press
4. Financial Times
5. New York Times
6. Washington Post
7. Economist
8. France24
I personally use CNN and BBC the most.
In my desire to stop being such a general dope about things, I have decided that I should actually start bloody paying attention to the news. Like a not-dope. The thing is, is that it is so easy to come across news sites that are so very biased, so very political, so very concerned with making people that agree with them very angry, and with simply not being read by people that don't agree with them.
I don't want objectivity, don't get me wrong! Objectivity is impossible in things written by humans, and an objective news site would probably have articles such as 'billions of years later, gravity still works' and 'how I took oxygen into my body and exhaled carbon dioxide in order to make sure the muscles in my body didn't shut down.'
There's nothing inherently wrong with opinions and subjectivity and politics and biases, but what I think is wrong is when the possibility for reasonable discourse between people of differing opinions is thrown out the window in order to pander towards people who already agree with their articles and make them boil and rupture furiously with exploding outrage and argh how could those idiots do such disgusting things I can't even believe it arrrrrgh I'm so mad that I could just agree with every single thing this person is saying without fact checking ARRRRGH.
So, on that note, I have taken to trying to figure out: which news sites are trustworthy?
MakeUseOf puts, in their article, the top three to be Associated News Press, BBC, and Brief.news.
Forbes puts their top three to be the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
TopTenz (now if that isn't an erudite-looking realm of carefully-researched scholars! It's the 'z' that really gets that across, wouldn't you say?) puts their top three to be Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and BBC.
Well, isn't that handy! Jolly old lists, just spread out, right for me!
Except, well, er, on an internet in which I don't know what to trust, I am using said internet (which I don't know what to trust on) to figure out what I'm meant to trust (on the internet.)
But what possible group of people out there are both intelligent and not hell-bent on getting my sweet earned human teeth (which is what we use in Australia instead of currency)?!
The PPC!
So, what do you lot think? You agree with the particular links I found, on trustworthy news? Got your own sites or opinions on it? Do you just want to pop in and call me an idiot? I'm fine with that. You can do that, if you really want.
Outrage is the appropriate response to things like, e.g., murder and destruction. There is LOTS of room for subjectivity in the world, but at some point, isn't the media failing in their duty if they pretend there's a debate where there isn't, or shouldn't be? Fact-checking is extremely important, and sometimes not all sides of an issue are factually valid. I have a particular example in mind, but I don't want to make the conversation about that, so I'm not going to say what it is. {= /
Anyway, I figure you can get information from just about anywhere, just as long as you keep certain things in mind. First, that there is a bias of one kind or another. Second, that somebody is trying to manipulate you for their own agenda, whether you agree with it or not. Third, somebody is profiting from it somehow. Fourth, not all data is created equal, and seventy-two percent of statistics are made up on the spot. I think my dad put it something like this: What do we know, how do we know it, and where's the money?
~Neshomeh
Outrage clearly has its place, no doubt, but I was more talking about when it's exploited, y'know? Pardon, for not making that more clear. Ahem. The sort of stuff like straw men, misrepresenting sides of arguments, all that sort of stuff. I suppose there's a dichotomy between presenting something that's genuinely outraging, and carefully trying to manufacture it. I mean, I can't stand that kind of thing. Straw men give my jimmies a good rustling, they do.
I'm sorry I can't think of my own good, maybe less obvious example, but my homeroom teacher fellow is constantly shoving videos by Ray Comfort down our throats. These videos are full of that stuff, and the only person who could ever possibly find any enjoyment or reason out of it would be people who already agree with everything within them, because it panders to them, gets them all mad at the people who are 'incorrect'. Said 'incorrect' people, of course, having arguments misrepresented, straw men getting tossed about, all sorts of other dishonest tactics, et al. What are reasonable beliefs with reasonable backings are portrayed as absurd, immoral, and those unethical fools are then torn apart and imprisoned in the Comfort Zone, on camera, by Ray Comfort's Comfort-Ray of Justice!
Now, if the 'incorrect' group was honestly shown and people were still outraged, that would be correct! That is true outrage, right there! It's being presented with something genuinely deserving of outrage, which then has people getting outraged.
But it's not outraging, is the problem. It's just sneakily put together in order to make it seem outraging. Or, er, such.
If you know about Ray Comfort, you probably know that he's a little goofy. But I can still respect his opinions, and I can still see where they logically come from. But that sort of dishonesty drives me up the wall.
But, yes! There certainly is genuine stuff to be outraged about, and it would probably a bit insulting, with some of those things, to try and redirect things away from them. Because they do deserve outrage, they do.
Also, I think I might vaguely know what your example might be, and I do apologise for bringing that sort of thing up or seemingly supporting it or such, with rubbish phrasing and general rubbishness.
I didn't mean to come off as accusative, more as "here is an interesting question your words have raised." My apologies also for not being more clear.
And yeah, I totally get where you're coming from. It's basically another side to the same problem, I think, of news people unscrupulously pushing a story without regard for the actual facts, reliability of data, etc. Mostly I get riled about this sort of thing when it comes to science and medicine stories, because people tend to grab onto statistically meaningless numbers and use them to insist that chocolate is great for your health, or butter is the devil, or whatever the latest trend is. Or like, the sugar industry shelling out to place all the blame for obesity on fats when it doesn't really work that way.
Or people arguing that climate change isn't happening and/or we have nothing to do with it, which is the thing I was thinking of, and am saying now because I now think being vague about it might be less helpful to a discussion.
Basically, I think we agree with each other that the news should strive to be honest and accurate, no matter its political leanings. Like, IMO, if your political party is doing something dumb, you shouldn't defend it, you should call it out so they stop being dumb, right? ... Eh?
~Neshomeh
Welp, I think that excuses the both of us a bit, wouldn't you say?
But, ey, absolutely, there. What's wrong's wrong, ideology and such aside. I feel like a lot of people are afraid to criticise, and have criticised, people representing their own ideas, as if a single area of criticism means that their ideology is no longer 'good' but 'bad', and they, themselves, are suddenly no longer 'good', as they thought, but 'bad'! Or, at least, that's the case in the example I'm thinking of, in which certain people refuse to acknowledge the horrendous situation of Indigenous Australians, as if accepting the responsibility for it and trying to support and acknowledge them will somehow make themselves, and all non-indigenous Australia (or at least all the white ones), immoral and spoiled and irreversibly evil, as a whole.
Which, er, is not the case. People ought to be responsible enough to admit wrongs, irrelevant of who did them, and not have a whole black and white worldview about the whole thing. Certainly, there's no good reason to be dishonest about things.
Also, as I read this I am eating a sugar-filled chocolate muffin. News statistics-wise, I am a health superman!
The Beeb is generally decent. I usually get my news from NPR. And AP is also quite good at its job.
So yeah, AP, BBC, and NPR are my go-tos. The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian are also good (well, I mostly know The Guardian from their tech reporting, particularly in regards to the Snowden leaks, so take that suggestion with a grain of salt).
In addition, I'd suggest staying as far away from cable news and other TV news as humanly possible. Sure, FOX News is the one you hear about, but the others are also pretty bad.
Oh, and remember: The Daily Show is not news. It is entertainment. Yes, I know that's obvious, but in the whirling madness of cable it gets confusing, as evidenced by the fact that Jon Stewart was once voted most trusted newscaster. See why I told you to avoid the place?
As a state-funded news network, the BBC is actually /required/ to avoid bias in their news. Some slips through anyway, of course - they've shown a great deal of frustration at Twitter Personality & President Trump, and they do enjoy using unflattering pictures of politicians they dislike - but by and large they do it well.
Be aware, though, that some articles are filed in things like the Magazine section, and aren't under the same rules. Opinion pieces, basically.
hS
Even before I actually properly tried figuring this stuff out, I sort of vaguely heard that they were good. And then the websites said it was good. And then pretty much everyone here concluded that it was good.
This is all, needless to say, probably very good evidence that they are good.
Also, I would have definitely made some mistake, regarding those opinion pieces, so cheers for the warning!
Just about every news source except for Fox has shown a great deal of frustration at Trump.
But yeah, Op pieces pretty much throw all the rules out the window.
In no particular order:
1. CNN (Probably best Cable News in the US)
2. BBC
3. Associate Press
4. Financial Times
5. New York Times
6. Washington Post
7. Economist
8. France24
I personally use CNN and BBC the most.
I like most of those. Except CNN. CNN is not very good.
In addition, I am a fan of NPR.
He probably finds it too biased.
The major three American Cable News Networks have all be accused of bias in some shape or form. MSNBC in my opinion is generally very left-leaning, and portrays itself as independent and unbiased. Fox News is incredibly right-leaning, to the point in my opinion it is borderline propaganda. Too be fair, MSNBC is pretty much as bad. But Fox, for the most part, never really pretended to be unbiased. MSNBC tries to paint itself as unbiased, but isn't.
CNN is a bit more complicated. At times people have accused them of being Left Leaning. At a time certain individuals would call it the "Clinton News Network" or the "Communist News Network". As for me, I have never seen too much of an issue with CNN. Sure their Op-Eds do tend to adopt a more liberal view, but their actual mainline reporting is fairly unbiased. Now to be fair, American Cable News does tend to be biased in some way, all news is. I just find CNN is balanced in comparison.
CNN has a fairly strong bias, and a variety of other problems (like poor reporting standards, and wave after wave of trivial nonsense news stories to fill a 24-hour news cycle - although that complaint can be levied at just about any network).
The thing is, "by comparison," it IS much better than other TV News Networks. But that's really not saying much, now is it?
The final - and trivial - danger sign is this: 8f Jon Stewart featured you and your repoting as a topic of discussion regularly over his decade, that's generally a bad sign. :-)