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

KomradeBishop · 02-08-2015 02:16AM

Naked Capitalism provides the best critical analysis of major economic issues and related political issues, that I know of - very educational, and has a good focus on trying to foster critical thinking among readers, rather than just regurgitating current events to its readers.

conorh91 · 02-08-2015 02:28AM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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".

you won't find even a dozen fake articles on any newspaper homepage

Even if such headlines were true, all oir main papers know better than to publish obviously false headlines.

TomBtheGoat · 02-08-2015 04:41AM

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.

Not over looking the fact, that a half dozen billionaires control the vast majority of the world's media. So fact's and real news reporting only tends to occur when it suits their interests.

speedboatchase · 02-08-2015 07:01AM

James Bond Junior wrote: »

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

Al Jazeera is ridiculously biased, on a sliding scale from Al Jazeera America, Al Jazeera English and then Al Jazeera Arabic. Every Palestinian killed by Israel - including Hamas fighters - are referred to as "martyrs". That's not impartial. I live in Qatar and have heard some horror stories from people who have worked in the newsroom - both in terms of anti-Western spinning of stories being met by mutual agreement in the Doha office (you can find an example if you Google the emails between AJ English and its Western correspondents following Charlie Hebdo) and the positive discrimination hiring of local graduates to senior positions with zero experience. It is similar to Russia Today in that you're getting the worldview of a specific country, one which frames things in a way that lauds the Muslim Brotherhood, infantalises Palestinians, and ignores what's going on in Qatar and its Gulf allies.

Fratton Fred · 02-08-2015 07:50AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

The British Broadcasting Corporation reporting British news? The shame.

One of the reasons the conservative party love attacking the BBC is that they see it as being very left wing and anti conservative. Labour see it as being a right wing Tory instrument.

That probably means it is doing its job.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-08-2015 09:09AM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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".

Dishinest is not necessarily the same as lying.

First two stories I read: illegal immigrants who are successful are being put up in hotels and being fed three meals a day and pocket money (was this verified? Did they present a counter argument? Bit dishonest to not enable a reader to check the sources or present the other side of the story)

Rolf Harris. This one just doesn't sound true. Why did Brosnsn not voice his suspicions earlier? Its also interesting the way these stories only ever appear when the person in question is either dead orvin jail. In other words, they can't reply, so the journalist is free to exaggerate or lie.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-08-2015 09:12AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British Broadcasting Corporation reporting British news? The shame.

One of the reasons the conservative party love attacking the BBC is that they see it as being very left wing and anti conservative. Labour see it as being a right wing Tory instrument.

That probably means it is doing its job.

Its not the slant of the content, its the content itself.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 02-08-2015 09:26AM

Breitbart?

Sheep Lover · 02-08-2015 09:31AM

The Mayo Star?

First Up · 02-08-2015 09:36AM

Waterford Whispers and The Onion.

It's all there.

branie2 · 02-08-2015 09:38AM

Sky News is good

Barely There · 02-08-2015 09:41AM

I find After Hours provides very good coverage on court cases and insightful, thoughtful analysis of custodial sentences.

Precious flower · 02-08-2015 12:12PM

Boring username wrote: »

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.

Read the first line and the last line. Introducing and concluding lines/paragraphs

Always helped when I was fighting through tons of history books in college and needed to get the jest of what I was covering!

MRnotlob606 · 02-08-2015 12:21PM

The Guardian can be good, when they're not trying to promote their feminazi white-guilt-ridden diatribe

snubbleste · 02-08-2015 01:09PM

Tuam Herald

Mechanical Clocktail · 02-08-2015 01:23PM

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The Guardian can be good, when their not trying to promote their feminazi white-guilt-ridden diatribe

It's not even funny. I had a look just there. Right now there's a big article on Amy Schumer with the caption "feminist honesty bomb". She's a horrible person. For example, shortly after Ryan Dunn's death, Steve-O was on a comedy roast. She made the most horrible "joke" about this guys friend who had just died tragically in a car accident. You can find it on youtube. Honesty bomb? She's an awful person that goes for crassness over wit. But what do her actual words matter if she can be held up as a success. Right beside this is an article about things Hipsters have ruined, from "beards to breakfast". An article about men ruining things, from The Guardian, who could believe it..

branie2 · 02-08-2015 01:24PM

The Irish Daily Star

razorblunt · 02-08-2015 01:29PM

Cork Evening Echo if you need to know who was out drinking in Cork on a Thursday night and why that sign fell over in Ballyvolane.

Sever Tomorrow · 02-08-2015 01:31PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

They have shows where the hosts have creative control. There was an LGBT activist on Sputnik the other week. Putin would hardly approve of that would he? Abby Martin was allowed air her disagreement of Russian military action in the Crimea. I watch it for a different perspective, same way I would Press TV which seems to be the only network properly covering the Saudi barbarity in Yemen. It has an agenda but so does most media. Watch them all and try to find a balance.

dxhound2005 · 02-08-2015 01:51PM

Ads by Google wrote: »

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.

TV news suffers (or gains depending on your point of view) from having pictures. If there is video of something it will get on to the TV news even if it is of minor importance. Just because it looks good and they have to fill in 24 hours. So cameraphone pictures of stupid people standing with their children near the sea during a storm will get on the news when it shows them getting drenched by a big wave. And with so many cameras out there now, this stuff is becoming more prevalent.

That incident would never make a radio news bulletin. So if you want serious news you should stick with the radio. BBC World Service, Voice of America, whatever your taste is. People used to rely on shortwave radio to listen to these sources (which cover the globe) but now they are online as well.

Zonda999 · 02-08-2015 02:02PM

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'm pretty sure I could base a dissertation on the Daily Mail to be honest, but I think the following piece sums up the Daily Mail quite well. Its a bit of a read but well worth it!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacyhttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacy

As regards news sources, I look through many. I genuinely believe you need to have a look around to read between the lines of any one particular story or news topic. Every source will have a different perspective

Actually on the subject of the Journal, I think its quite informative in fairness and gets the balance fairly right between entertainment value story's and actual news. The comments section is pure gold though, particularly anything political or on social issues.

The_Valeyard · 02-08-2015 02:07PM

Have to disagree, The Journal is an unbelievable heap of sh*te. With clickbait articles, unbalanced perspectives and Ad driven articles. And don't get me started on the comment section. Makes the poster in AH look like sophisticated philosophers.

jaymcg91 · 02-08-2015 02:12PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Have to disagree, The Journal is an unbelievable heap of sh*te. With clickbait articles, unbalanced perspectives and Ad driven articles. And don't get me started on the comment section. Makes the poster in AH look like sophisticated philosophers.

I assumed people were taking the mick claiming The Journal as some authoritative purveyor of news :P.

The_Valeyard · 02-08-2015 02:52PM

jaymcg91 wrote: »

I assumed people were taking the mick claiming The Journal as some authoritative purveyor of news :P.

I really hope so.

dublinman1990 · 02-08-2015 03:11PM

For online news I look up the journal and breakingnews.ie for Irish news. For international news the current sites would be a combination of mostly the DM, Guardian & Daily Telegraph. For TV News I would look up the news either on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 or RTE.

I access either source when on 3 forum sites boards, TV Forum and Digital Spy. For film & broadcasting news I look up websites like Home & Media Magazine, IFTN, Blu-ray.com, What Hi-Fi & a516digital as I have a good interest in these subjects.

02-08-2015 03:27PM

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The Guardian can be good, when their not trying to promote their feminazi white-guilt-ridden diatribe

They do employ proper journalists, thats true, but its news with an agenda from the selection of material to the angle presented. Reporting should be as objective as possible and they fail on this score.

Full Marx · 02-08-2015 04:03PM

Al Jazeera and The Guardian are my two main ones...

PizzamanIRL · 02-08-2015 04:25PM

NachoBusiness · 02-08-2015 04:37PM

Zonda999 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I could base a dissertation on the Daily Mail to be honest, but I think the following piece sums up the Daily Mail quite well.

lol. As I was saying:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Obviously the DM has it's detractors (just a few) but it the main, these people tend to be sheep regurgitating opinion..

Look, I get the criticisms of the DM, I do, and I agree with some of them, but are Murdoch's tabloids any better? Course not. Do I agree with much of the opinions that their hack's spout? No, but I don't need to in order to see that the Daily Mail is an excellent source for news, which is what the question was. Their site is a breeze to navigate, they are online with current news faster than almost any other news site and the vast majority of their articles, from current news, breaking news, showbiz, sport, femail, health etc etc etc, is devoid of agenda and the stuff that isn't devoid of agenda (which I fully accept is there) can very easily be sidestepped and best of all, like I said, it's free.

I still like the BBC and also really like the Telegraph, but in the latter's case their site is annoying as after you read a certain about of articles they want to charge you to view more. I know there are ways around this but it's a pain having to initiate them.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-08-2015 05:37PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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

Cracking website. Wall of shame notwithstanding.

I have to admit they are very good for photos. Not so good for cancer news.

http://www.presstv.com/ is where it's at

All news sources have bias. It's much easier to filter when you know what the bias is.

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

Comments