What news sources are still good? BBC just went to pot..

01-08-2015 07:32PM #1

Used to like the Irish papers but they're too localized. Then I was on the guardian for a few years but lost interest in it by now as well. Not big on news anymore but BBC fit the bill for the last few months till tonight.

Taliban leader died two years ago, here's a photo of the new leader for about five seconds. Now let's tell the story with an entire backdrop of normal Muslims in a mosque.

Maybe I missed something but it was a bit mad to just show a genreric mosque as the background for a "western threat". I tried to listen but couldn't find the reason for it.

GLaDOS · 01-08-2015 07:37PM

I hear The Journal offer insightful articles, balanced user comments and impeccable spelling.

Jinonatron · 01-08-2015 07:39PM

Russia today is a good comedy sketch.

Boring username · 01-08-2015 09:22PM

A handy tip I learned from a journalist is just to read the first paragraph of any news story. Pretty much everything you need to know is there, everything else is filler and the mandatory sound-byte from a slack jawed witness.

To answer your question, keep a broad range of sites in mind and just flick through them for coverage. Don't bother with in depth analysis or clickbait, since that's what they are all leaning towards these days.

pickarooney · 01-08-2015 09:26PM

Boring username wrote: »

A handy tip I learned from a journalist is just to read the first paragraph of any news story.

Because you can't copy and paste more than that to twitter anyway.

01-08-2015 09:29PM

Bloomberg is good but they've just updated their app to a crap version.

Fukuyama · 01-08-2015 09:36PM

Forget 24/7 News or sites like The Journal. All SHOCK HORROR clickbait designed to either appeal to the masses or upset them. Either way it generates more shares on social media.

I keep an eye on major events. Al Jazeera English and BBC World are two good sites. RTE for National affairs. All three need to be viewed with their paymasters in mind of course.

For in-depth analysis, I have a weekly subscription to TIME magazine. Decent feature pieces even if some articles can be a little too liberal for me (they tend to bend the knee to PC trends a little too often for me).

Financial Times for sound advise as to why the world is going to **** and how we should save it by investing in helium.

Streetwalker · 01-08-2015 09:43PM

RT is decent at balancing out the spin sky/fox/RTE etc...put out there. For instance their coverage of the UK houses of parliament pedophile ring whilst UK media turns the other way is important.

KomradeBishop · 01-08-2015 10:39PM

What kind of news are you looking for? If you're focusing on a particular general outlet, a whole newspaper, a whole news network etc., then you're just mixing the good with the bad, instead of finding the authors that are actually worth reading.

The_Valeyard · 01-08-2015 10:44PM

Streetwalker wrote: »

RT is decent at balancing out the spin sky/fox/RTE etc...put out there. For instance their coverage of the UK houses of parliament pedophile ring whilst UK media turns the other way is important.

Yes, they take out the sky / Fox spin and add in Putin's spin.

James Bond Junior · 01-08-2015 10:45PM

My dad is a news junkie and holds Al Jazeera in high esteem. Reckons they are actually quite impartial.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2015 10:47PM

Helps to watcg a range of outlets. Guardian and RT are the ones I find to be the most interesting.

BBC went to pot ages ago. Conservstive mouthpiece now - can't remember the last time I went to their website and it wasn't telling me how whatever war rhe Brits were involved in was going or wahetver ISIS was doing now.

Fox_In_Socks · 01-08-2015 10:50PM

After Hours on this little set up called boards.ie is quite good. It features a multitude of investigators, commentators and purveyors of the latest news information, presented in an unbiased fashion.

Billy86 · 01-08-2015 10:52PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Yes, they take out the sky / Fox spin and add in Putin's spin.

You mean like, almost as if they were balancing it out?

01-08-2015 10:56PM

You don't even need news sites. Primary information is where it's at. Read press releases from the likes of the European Commission/ Council, the IMF, the Bank of England, the Irish Finance Ministry, the ESRI...

You'll be just as well informed as the journalists who write on these topics, if not better informed. And you won't have to rely on their opinion or bias.

Cut out the middleman altogether.

I read national newspapers for actual news (road deaths, murder trials, election results), but anything contentious, you're better off going to the source. The very idea of needing to read op-eds is mildly insulting.

NachoBusiness · 01-08-2015 10:58PM

The Daily Mail is an exceptional news source.. oh yeah, I said it.

99% of the time they will have a news story up online long before anyone else. Their website is easy to use and more importantly, free. Obviously the DM has it's detractors (just a few) but it the main, these people tend to be sheep and just regurgitating opinion regarding it. They hate women! Nope, the DM pretty much hate everyone. Seem obsessed wit Leo DeCaprio's weight at the minute indeed. They are right wing and hate foreigners! Nope, they just have the balls to report things the way they are and even if they did, I can always disagree and move to the next article.

Well over 90% of the articles on DM site will not have been reported with an agenda in in mind and the ones that have, well, I am an adult capable of making my own mind up and so I do just that. Contrast that with the likes of the Guardian and almost all of their news are whitewashed and bent to suit their leftist agenda. That's if they bother to report certain aspects of the news at all, and quite often they won't, they will just ignore certain stories which they feel don't suit their nauseating narrative.

Cracking website. Wall of shame notwithstanding.

Long reign the Daily Mail I say.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2015 11:09PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The Daily Mail is an exceptional news source.. oh yeah, I said it.

99% of the time they will have a news story up online long before anyone else. Their website is easy to use and more importantly, free. Obviously the DM has it's detractors (just a few) but it the main, these people tend to be sheep and just regurgitating opinion regarding it. They hate women! Nope, the DM pretty much hate everyone. Seem obsessed wit Leo DeCaprio's weight at the minute indeed. They are right wing and hate foreigners! Nope, they just have the balls to report things the way they are and even if they did, I can always disagree and move to the next article.

Well over 90% of the articles on DM site will not have been reported with an agenda in in mind and the ones that have, well, I am an adult capable of making my own mind up and so I do just that. Contrast that with the likes of the Guardian and almost all of their news are whitewashed and bent to suit their leftist agenda. That's if they bother to report certain aspects of the news at all, and quite often they won't, they will just ignore certain stories which they feel don't suit their nauseating narrative.

Cracking website. Wall of shame notwithstanding.

Long reign the Daily Mail I say.

I may be wrong, but I think he meant honest.

Smiles35 · 01-08-2015 11:15PM

Telegraph seems ok imo.

Berserker · 01-08-2015 11:20PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The Daily Mail is an exceptional news source.. oh yeah, I said it.

Just beat me to it and I second your recommendation.

Junkyard Tom · 01-08-2015 11:25PM

Business news can be surprisingly honest about world affairs and if you read between the lines you can see why certain things happen.

KomradeBishop · 01-08-2015 11:43PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You don't even need news sites. Primary information is where it's at. Read press releases from the likes of the European Commission/ Council, the IMF, the Bank of England, the Irish Finance Ministry, the ESRI...

You'll be just as well informed as the journalists who write on these topics, if not better informed. And you won't have to rely on their opinion or bias.

Cut out the middleman altogether.

I read national newspapers for actual news (road deaths, murder trials, election results), but anything contentious, you're better off going to the source. The very idea of needing to read op-eds is mildly insulting.

The problem with that is, you risk digesting press reports uncritically - I would consider press reports from every one of those organizations to be inherently biased.

So, you'd want to have some good sources/writers, who do critical analysis of those source and their reports - someone picking apart the press releases for you, to highlight what is objectionable (and you decide which criticisms are/aren't valid).

P1nkSheep · 01-08-2015 11:45PM

James Bond Junior wrote: »

My dad is a news junkie and holds Al Jazeera in high esteem. Reckons they are actually quite impartial.

I agree with your dad, definitely give a more balanced view on things than many other broadcasters

Mechanical Clocktail · 01-08-2015 11:50PM

The guardian is a parody of itself for the last couple of years.

cml387 · 01-08-2015 11:59PM

I happen to be reading a book called "Flat Earth News" at the moment,written by Nick Davies (sometime Guardian journalist, but don't let that put you off).

His point is that ALL media outlets, and he includes The Guardian, are mainly regurgitating nonsense from PR sources, official government sources and advertisers.

This is done not because of any huge conspiracy but because the media is not driven by a thirst for news but a thirst for making money.

So therefore, they will only report news that fits the reader profile and panders to whats popular.

So we have celeb news, bandwagon journalism and for gods sake don't bore anyone with facts.

Mechanical Clocktail · 02-08-2015 12:04AM

cml387 wrote: »

I happen to be reading a book called "Flat Earth News" at the moment,written by Nick Davies (sometime Guardian journalist, but don't let that put you off).

His point is that ALL media outlets, and he includes The Guardian, are mainly regurgitating nonsense from PR sources, official government sources and advertisers.

This is done not because of any huge conspiracy but because the media is not driven by a thirst for news but a thirst for making money.

So therefore, they will only report news that fits the reader profile and panders to whats popular.

So we have celeb news, bandwagon journalism and for gods sake don't bore anyone with facts.

A more researched and engaging book would be manufacturing consent.

Son Of A Vidic · 02-08-2015 12:09AM

Jinonatron wrote: »

Russia today is a good comedy sketch.

Sky News or Fox beats it hands down.

02-08-2015 12:17AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I would consider press reports from every one of those organizations to be inherently biased.

Excellent observation, completely correct.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

you'd want to have some good sources/writers, who do critical analysis of those source and their reports - someone picking apart the press releases for you, to highlight what is objectionable (and you decide which criticisms are/aren't valid).

Ideally, yes.

My chosen type of news information is certainly an imperfect choice, because of the inherent political bias of the IMF, the Commission, the BoE, and so on.

However, although I cannot eliminate first-hand political bias, I can at least eliminate second-hand bias: the publications and statistics that The Times (of London/ Financial/ Irish), or the Guardian (Nenagh/ UK) choose to ignore.

It's more of a risk limitation exercise than risk eradication.

02-08-2015 01:16AM

Google news is pretty good.

NachoBusiness · 02-08-2015 02:04AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think he meant honest.

Around 150 articles on their homepage right now. Find me just a dozen of them which are factually incorrect. Not annoying articles now (such as: 'Look, a Kardashian goes for a walk') or articles where you just don't like an opinion that one of their hacks has expressed (such as: 'the French are to blame for the chaos in Calais')...but genuine examples of them deliberately being "dishonest".

Wacker The Attacker · 02-08-2015 02:06AM

The financial times.

My golden rule is that if you want to know whats really going on in the world, read the business pages.

Wacker The Attacker · 02-08-2015 02:08AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Business news can be surprisingly honest about world affairs and if you read between the lines you can see why certain things happen.

True for you.

The rest is horseplop

What news sources are still good? BBC just went to pot..

Comments