OT - a news source without the sensationalism
I haven't consumed news content for years because I can't stand mainstream media and its baggage, lies, political bents, biases, stupid ads, and sensationalism focused on keeping constituents angry, but I recently found a news source called Early Chirp that feels a bit healthier to consume.
Their ads are sponsor based so they integrate one ad with their content as if they're reporting on it, which feels way more natural and less jarring than banner ads and fucking pop ups.
The articles are written in a very classic reporting style - reminds me of local newspapers and is a pleasant read during my morning coffee.
It's free to subscribe, and they'll send you their daily issue every morning. Here's a link to their latest issue.
Any news sources y'all follow that you like and offer a similar experience?
April 21st, 2023 at 10:27 AM ^
Well, the link makes pretty clear that the publisher is trying to free-ride on actual journalists' work with a quickly-built aggregator that lacks bylines.
I'm happy for you OP but I only consume news that is fully sensationalized. If the presenter isn't frothing at the mouth like they're possibly rabid then it's not news.
Can't wait for the next thread where we all get to discuss our views on abortion. I'm sure that would be a very healthy, civil debate.
/s if not blatantly obvious
Let's just leave this kind of stuff at the door, shall we?
April 21st, 2023 at 11:43 AM ^
Was the OP changed or something? I'm laughing at Dennis/Bradley getting rankled at people busting his balls (sorry Dennis/Bradley), but his post doesn't seem to elicit anything divisive in my reading of it, unless people really love their sensationalized news outlets. Is that an actual thing? If so, I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore. People will identify with anything it seems.
I think the BBC, though they present a point of view, can be worthwhile to listen, read, and / or watch.
The WSJ has a perspective - but, I think it’s easier than most to see a point of view.
I miss the days when facts were presented - as in the weather, it’s 70 degrees, partly cloudy, with a 30% chance of rain. Each of us can reach our own interpretation whether those conditions are “fantastic” or “not”.
Media has become almost nothing except opinion - which is such a disappointment.
I record the Sunday morning political talk shows - and try to watch each of them. “Meet the Press” has become a shadow of its former self when Tim Russert was the moderator.
There was a comment earlier which basically stated - read and try to understand both sides of an issue. This is an approach I agree with. After doing your homework, use your compass and reach your own opinion / conclusion.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:35 AM ^
I just stopped by to see if anyone would mention BBC. I definitely recommend them as one data point. though not without bias. I check them every day, along with CNN and FOX, and I assume between all three I at least can find out what topics are out there. Then if anything piques my interest I dig in and see what all other sources are saying.
It's very sad that one has to weigh the bias you know each source is pushing before believing anything written. BBC is my favorite overall, but their coverage of Ukraine has been ridiculously one-sided. I'm pro-Ukraine (I hope that doesn't cause an insta-ban), but come on. The Russians aren't as incompetent as the BBC wants us to believe.
Be at least as skeptical as your family cat.
I'll shut up now.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:51 AM ^
I’ll go the BBC website for international news, but I find them lacking in some areas in the US, which is probably not a surprise.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:12 AM ^
MMB - your approach makes sense. There's just so little (IMO) relatively objective media out there - and, opinion has taken over almost everything.
I miss reporters, or interviewers, really doing their "homework". Tim Russert, of "Meet the Press" was so different from what we see today. As a kid, my dad would turn it on when we returned from church on Sunday mornings.
What I most enjoyed were the interviews, and Russert was an example. Russert would ask a guest - "Senator, can you please explain why you think we should be "going east" on this issue?" Then - the senator would reply. And, after hearing the response - Russert would ask - "Senator, here's a clip from a prior interview when you stated the government should be "going west". Let's listen to the clip - and, then - if you would, please explain why you've changed your opinion."
I'd like to see it "down the middle" - but, it's such a rare commodity.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:20 AM ^
Joe Rogan and Bill Maher are pretty good interviewers if you are looking for this.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:32 AM ^
I don't mind Maher's general snarkiness, but he is not a good interviewer.
April 21st, 2023 at 12:05 PM ^
i tune in to BBC because i enjoy the accents.
naked news is a pleasant change of pace as well
The biggest overarching issue with media is that fact and opinion are now combined. I cringe every time I see an article that says "so and so claimed, falsely, that ......" Unless they have literal first hand knowledge of the truth or falsity of a claim, that is not their decision to make.
I strongly oppose actions like the Dominion lawsuit. In my opinion, it should have been dismissed, and this is not based on political point of view. Claims were being made that were newsworthy. The claims, themselves, were broadcasted on nearly every network. Anybody watching the content could research further to determine what their opinion was at to the allegations being made. Guests were also presented that disputed the claims being made.
I think freedom of the press is absolutely paramount, and that the Dominion suit and others like it get us closer to having only "approved opinions" and that is a terrible thing.
The issue with Dominion and any other is that the US Gov doesn't operate an elections completely free and independent of Political Parties. And with absolutely no way for the data to be fully reviewed and recovered with 100% confidence of the voting and review of the software operating one cannot presume something did or did not happen.
I myself can absolutely see how Americans voted Against Trump in massive numbers as he had become a bigger azz than the left mob. What many conservatives loved was when they yelled, he yelled just as loud. I felt the same was a vote against Hillary as much as it was a vote for Trump in 2016.
What the avg american politically close to the center was just worn out with it and he had become so unlikeable that people just didn't want 4 more years of that bs. They want their country to operate, make money, go home and afford the life they live. Support their ideals and have the freedom to do so.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:06 AM ^
Energy - I think of the Presidential Debate Committee. This is a group that is composed of representatives from each party. I would much prefer an impartial entity conduct the Presidential debates. The challenge is - WHO is impartial.
Years ago, I thought the League of Women Voters did as good of a job at the debates as anyone.
As for elections being "fair". That's a broad question. There is so much money in the US Political system that the "power" of incumbency with the associated money raising efforts - creates an unlevel playing field.
I think the GAO can be chartered with Auditing any technology used in elections - and, they'd be relatively objective doing an assessment.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:14 AM ^
I am for celebrity guest hosts of presidential debates. Typically, they are pretty boring affairs. But throw in McConnahay, Ludicrous, and J-Law asking the questions and I might check them out.
Anybody watching the content could research further to determine what their opinion was at to the allegations being made.
Not even sure where to start with that one ...
What about it?
April 21st, 2023 at 10:18 AM ^
I'll start with something easy. Imagine you're watching Fox News and you see Sidney Powell claiming that Trump won the election in a landslide and Maria Bartiromo nodding along appreciatively. Exactly how are you going to "research" that claim?
Remember that you're watching a TV news show. Regardless of which one (OAN, Fox, MSPMS, Morning Joe, etc.), your odds of being a competent "researcher" are already unfavorable. (People who do actual research for a living don't tend to watch infotainment.)
April 21st, 2023 at 10:20 AM ^
You tell me. How do you research that claim? Specifically, how would Fox News research that claim?
April 21st, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
Fox amplified claims that they knew were bullshit. That's libel.
Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to knowingly libel/slander someone.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:03 AM ^
So did NBC. All networks reported on the claims.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:19 AM ^
Except the other news outlets were saying, essentially "Here's the latest insane bullshit Trump and his lawyers are trying to get you to believe."
April 21st, 2023 at 11:21 AM ^
Exactly. So the claims are OK to air as long as the person reporting it has the correct opinion about the topic.
That's nuts.
April 21st, 2023 at 11:55 AM ^
Claims are OK to air as long as they are not done "knowing that it is false" or with "reckless disregard" for the statement's truth or falsity.
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show it, but discovery in the Fox case uncovered evidence that a jury could have had a chance to review.
"The plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work."
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-neglig…
April 21st, 2023 at 12:04 PM ^
If Fox commentators would have said "but we don't think it is true," would that have remedied it?
April 21st, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
Depends. If they make a face like this when delivering the information, the deal's off. :)
Yeah that page has sensationalized lines all over it and no sourcing for their numbers, I would hardly say that's the kind of unbiased news people would be looking for.
AP News and Reuters are all you need
I scan the WSJ, NYT, Detnews, and Freep and that's pretty good for me. Plus MGoBlog...
nyt has gone downhill
I usually skip the article and go straight to the Reddit comments whenever there’s a big news story.
I'm a bit of a news junkie and subscribe to the following sites (for various reasons):
NYT
WSJ
New York Post
The New Yorker
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Boston Globe
Washington Post
Detroit News
Freep
Tennessean
By the end of the day I'm often very sad.
Some good sources - and, I think The Economist can be added to the list.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:14 AM ^
I get my news from the comments section of local news' facebook pages.
I used to love the Economist and would often read my paper copy every weekend, cover to cover. But then Twitter came along and I got used to the immediacy of digital news sites. Plus the Economist is insanely expensive. For most of those sites above I'm paying only one or two dollars a month. The most expensive one is the new Yorker which is $99 a year, but the depth and quality of their writing is so good, it's worth it.
April 21st, 2023 at 12:26 PM ^
Ha, this is what I don't understand about a lot of people. I get wanting to be informed, we all should be somewhat informed on what is going on in the US/World. What I can never understand is people that wake up, go to work, come home, and then turn on something that is specifically designed to make them angry. It just boggles my mind. Most people have jobs that they either hate or tolerate, coming home and watching entertainment news that just increases your blood pressure further is just bizarre to me.
My commute is only one flight of stairs.
I don't watch cable news, only sports or black and white movies.
The trick to maintaining sanity with digital content is to never read the comments (MGoBlog being the exception that proves the rule).
If you actually think this post was a good idea, I have a pillow I want to sell you.
Maybe its the national news provider for Bolivia? Because this post convi\nced me it was.
Tell me you're at least getting paid for the marketing. Please.
His name is Bradley and he is from Ypsilanti and today he tied his shoes for the very first time
Is there a specific reason you're being a dick? That's an actual question I'm asking you. Like YOU, the real person sitting in your chair being a dick to a stranger. Why?
Why ask why
Try Bud Dry
April 21st, 2023 at 11:32 AM ^
Is that one of those beers I have to throw out because it's gay or something?
I get my news via the buttchug
April 21st, 2023 at 10:08 AM ^
It used to be MLive, but I only believed what I read in the comments sections. Now, other than MGoBlog, it 100% Twitter.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:11 AM ^
This is a generally OK media bias chart, though I'm sure there are plenty of individual outliers that you could question. As you would expect, BBC, major three networks, Reuters and AP are generally pretty good, but even they are not perfect since they're run by fallible humans and not Skynet.
As a general rule of thumb though, if a new source purports to give you nEws yoU won'T FinD anYwHEre eLsE, there is a damn good reason for that and it's not the reason said source thinks it is.
Also, my name is not Bradley.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:54 AM ^
ABC 15 Arizona?
April 21st, 2023 at 11:10 AM ^
FOX 11 Los Angeles is on there too.
Maybe Snoopy's brother Spike from Needles, California put this together --- those are his local affiliates.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
Great chart… thanks for posting.
April 21st, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
Skynet infallible?! 😀