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

First Up · 02-08-2015 06:06PM

The Times:
Read by the people who run the country.
Daily Mirror:
Read by the people who think they run the country.
Guardian:
Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
Morning Star:
Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
Daily Mail:
Read by the wives of the people who own the country.
Financial Times:
Read by the people who own the country.
Daily Express:
Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
Daily Telegraph:
Read by the people who think it still is.
The Sun:
Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.

Rezident · 02-08-2015 06:12PM

FT.

branie2 · 02-08-2015 06:13PM

Fox News is too biased

MarkAnthony · 02-08-2015 06:18PM

First Up wrote: »

The Times:
Read by the people who run the country.
Daily Mirror:
Read by the people who think they run the country.
Guardian:
Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
Morning Star:
Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
Daily Mail:
Read by the wives of the people who own the country.
Financial Times:
Read by the people who own the country.
Daily Express:
Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
Daily Telegraph:
Read by the people who think it still is.
The Sun:
Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.

Come now, let's quote our sources, especially when they're as good as 'Yes, Prime Minister'.

marklazarcovic · 02-08-2015 06:33PM

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.

sorry stopped reading after this :pac:

A Primal Nut · 02-08-2015 06:42PM

Its funny how liberals dismiss any newspaper which doesn't agree with their views as biased or a "conservative mouthpiece". In other words "There is no way someone can disagree with my views so they must have an ulterior motive".

The Guardian is more biased than Fox News (or BBC as someone mentioned in this thread) but because they are left wing they don't get criticised for it. They are constantly shoving the same ideas down people's throats:

Unlimited Immigration
Men are assholes
Muslims are all great and any criticism of Islam is Islamaphobia
Christians and Christianity on the other hand are generally covered negatively.
All successful people are bad (they once wrote an article criticising everyone who worked in Silicon Valley)

That said I still read it because I think it's important to get a range of opinions from different sources (guardian, BBC, CNN, Fox, RT, Xinhua, even like checking out KCNA now and again) - unfortunately most people, especially lefties, insist on getting their news from the sources that agree with them most.

KomradeBishop · 02-08-2015 06:47PM

Why do people pick whole newspapers, rather than specific journalists though? Every single newspaper puts out a lot of garbage, and it usually takes sifting through them for the better authors (and then checking up their history for problems with reporting), to get good quality news/journalism.

If you read any amount of bad journalism, you're effectively polluting your intelligence with garbage, in my view - not even the smartest of people can be 'on guard' enough, to avoid garbage news making them pick up little 'factoids' of nonsense, here and there.

Most outlets have RSS feeds for individual journalists, or even whole general topics, which makes this quite handy - a program like QuiteRSS (only found this a few days ago, a perfect replacement for my old reader) is perfect for collecting a ton of individual journalists/outlets writing, in once place.

EuropeanSon · 02-08-2015 06:50PM

Bloomberg is the best free news service.

FT is the best thing out there, but it's got a paywall and it remains to be seen how it's coverage will withstand it's recent takeover by a Japanese company.

Guardian has turned to trash in the last year or so, and daily mail is and has always been a joke aimed at imbeciles.

A Primal Nut · 02-08-2015 06:51PM

Kinda of agree with you KomradeBishop, but to be fair many news organisations (especially Guardian and Fox) insist on an editorial line that must be followed so I think that influences people's thinking.

But for example, Rupert Murdoch is usually considered evil and people say his news organisations are rubbish but even then his Sunday Times has done a lot of good investigative journalism that any reasonable person would say has been excellent..for example FIFA corruption over the years springs to mind.

First Up · 02-08-2015 06:59PM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Come now, let's quote our sources, especially when they're as good as 'Yes, Prime Minister'.

That pre-dates Yes PM by several years. If I had the original source/accreditation I would have given it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-08-2015 07:01PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

lol. As I was saying:

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.

Most of the online ones are free! Also, the price of the paper has no realtionship to the quality of it.

It may be better than most other tabloids, but the fact that you're defining it as a tabloid speaks volumes.

They are not devoid of agenda to be fair - they have a very clear anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner agenda.

It may be a good source of "news" but is the news accurate? Do you care?

02-08-2015 07:25PM

I like BBC, Reuters, The Week, CNN and the NYT. Different sources cover some things better than others, one site isn't going to cover all your news in a universally unbiased way.

KomradeBishop · 02-08-2015 07:28PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Kinda of agree with you KomradeBishop, but to be fair many news organisations (especially Guardian and Fox) insist on an editorial line that must be followed so I think that influences people's thinking.

But for example, Rupert Murdoch is usually considered evil and people say his news organisations are rubbish but even then his Sunday Times has done a lot of good investigative journalism that any reasonable person would say has been excellent..for example FIFA corruption over the years springs to mind.

Well, Glenn Greenwald did writing with the Guardian for a bit over a year or so, and he is a fiercely independent journalist - so there are plenty of individual journalists out there, who are truly independent of their organizations influence.

The problem with the Daily Mail's take on stories like that though, is that on key topics - usually economic ones, as they are the most propaganda-filled and least trustworthy stories within all news organizations - the writing is often quite skewed to holding a particular line, and you still end up picking this up and internalizing it, unless you really study a topic independently.

Earthhorse · 02-08-2015 07:44PM

So you were happy with the BBC but then they did one thing you didn't like and now they're no good? Okay.

Leaving that aside I like the New York Times, Washington Post and New Yorker. The Guardian definitely do great pieces but they fancy themselves a bit too much.

NachoBusiness has a point about tabloids in general, I would say, being a bit more fearless than the broadsheets. But you won't get good nuance and analysis from them. So it all depends what you're looking for.

It's a bit of a cliché at this stage but the satirical news programs such as The Daily Show can be good for understanding and digesting the big stories. Closer to home Have I Got News For You fulfills a similar role.

More parochially The Irish Times and Examiner are the only papers worth reading but neither are great.

As others have said choosing one news source in today's world is doing yourself a disservice. I tend to aggregate news through Zite on my iPad and visiting r/TrueReddit.

Tell me how · 02-08-2015 08:04PM

I used to watch Fox for the simple reason to identify the BS viewpoint in stories particularly with respect to US involvement in world affairs. If they were taking an extra strong viewpoint regarding the liberal behaviour of the democrats/president then I could say "meh same old same old" and pretty much ignore the story.
It was only when the story was cast iron and highly important that they tried to be objective for a minute or 2.
Agree with poster re Time magazine. Can be interesting albeit somewhat mainstream and a few days behind the rolling news.
Hate the latest edition of BBC news website. Agree that AJE is relatively impartial and informative particularly on stories that the western media might not be as quick to report.

MarkAnthony · 02-08-2015 08:30PM

First Up wrote: »

That pre-dates Yes PM by several years. If I had the original source/accreditation I would have given it.

Several sources acredit it to Jay and Lynn and Yes, Prime Minister. I doubt the exact quote has a etymology beyond that. Certainly you could have credited where you copied and pasted it from.

First Up · 02-08-2015 08:46PM

Well I've been reciting it for years and I don't remember where I first heard it. But I know it wasn't on Yes Minister, or Yes PM.

No big deal. I just think it is quite apt for this thread.

Billy86 · 02-08-2015 08:52PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Its funny how liberals dismiss any newspaper which doesn't agree with their views as biased or a "conservative mouthpiece". In other words "There is no way someone can disagree with my views so they must have an ulterior motive".

The Guardian is more biased than Fox News (or BBC as someone mentioned in this thread) but because they are left wing they don't get criticised for it. They are constantly shoving the same ideas down people's throats:

Unlimited Immigration
Men are assholes
Muslims are all great and any criticism of Islam is Islamaphobia
Christians and Christianity on the other hand are generally covered negatively.
All successful people are bad (they once wrote an article criticising everyone who worked in Silicon Valley)

That said I still read it because I think it's important to get a range of opinions from different sources (guardian, BBC, CNN, Fox, RT, Xinhua, even like checking out KCNA now and again) - unfortunately most people, especially lefties, insist on getting their news from the sources that agree with them most.

Sorry but unless you can find me a whole world of examples of the Guardian (and I'm not a huge fan of the publication) outright lying and getting their facts continuously wrong then your post is incorrect. Just look at the breakdown Politifact had of them compared to the other major news outlets in the US:

NBC: 36% true/mostly true... 22% half-true... 44% false/mostly false... 4% 'pants on fire' lies.
ABC: 42% true/mostly true... 22% half-true... 35% false/mostly false... 0% 'pants on fire' lies.
CNN: 39% true/mostly true... 21% half-true... 20% false/mostly false... 3% 'pants on fire' lies.
FOX: 23% true/mostly true...19% half-true... 50% false/mostly false... 9% 'pants on fire lies'

That is a huge discrepancy compared to the others, and if you are wondering what would constitute a 'pants on fire' lie, here are some examples...

12. Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks.

34. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states)."

37. Says President Barack Obama’s recent New York fundraising trip "cost between $25 million and $50 million."

39. Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

41. "NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming."

So something like...

7. "There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people."

50. "Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it."

...would not be "pants on fire" even though it is a ridiculously inaccurate comment. That would just go under false, which makes 50% of what FOX News claim and report.

If you are wondering where I got those quotes from, a few months ago Jon Stewart's Daily Show did a piece called '50 FOX News Lies in 6 Seconds' - and Politifact went through them to check.

For more further lies, see this list of major bullsh*t just from last year alone, or the 99 from host Bill O'Reilly alone, and that is just with one very quick Google search for 'FOX News lies'. But I guess what could we expect from the channel that brought us this guy...

I mean, some of it you couldn't even make up...

...but when you live in such a bubble, you need to silence any dissenting voices that might interrupt that with something scary like reality. It's not out of the ordinary for them...

...even if we are talking about the President of the US...

...but sometimes they bite off more than they can chew.

I agree in general that a range of sources should be gone to for news and information as pretty much every last one has it's own slant and/or bias. But FOX is, by a distance, the most biased major 'news' source in the English speaking western world.

First Up · 02-08-2015 09:00PM

Fox News is just a shameless, unapologetic propaganda vehicle for the far right. The only worrying bit is that some people think it speaks the truth.

And most of them have guns.

dublinman1990 · 03-08-2015 01:10AM

I think the worst source from UK newspapers is definitely the British Independent. I read one article from there today from a guy named Andrew Griffin. The article in which I read today thought it was vile, self-serving and completely laughable at the same time.

You may not like these three guys but it was about something completely trivial to tell people who are Amazon Prime customers in the UK to just cancel their entire subscription on the service because Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond & James May are putting their new car show on there.

If you think journalism is getting worse in other newspapers have a look at this and the comments below it to be pleasantly surprised at the backlash.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/how-to-cancel-amazon-prime-after-top-gear-hiring-how-to-leave-premium-service-10426517.html

I just thought in my opinion that this article went completely offensive to current customers who enjoy the service when they have it at their disposal.

mojesius · 03-08-2015 01:25AM

I watch Channel 4 7pm news with Jon Snow. He does know something...Seriously though, he gets through a lot in an hour.

BBC is nearly as bad as sky news now with it's flashing breaking news warnings and obsession with what Kate Middleton ate for lunch.

For Irish news and current affairs, Sean O Rourke's show is decent. Online, breaking news.ie and newspaper-wise, I'd go with the examiner.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-08-2015 02:32AM

mojesius wrote: »

I watch Channel 4 7pm news with Jon Snow. He does know something...

He knows nothing, Jon Snow...

(Oh come on - you saw it too!)

ChunkyLover54 · 03-08-2015 02:45AM

I like Euronews, mainly because I find it quite relaxing to watch.

ChunkyLover54 · 03-08-2015 03:00AM

For print/online news, the source I check most frequently is The Guardian. Although it contains a lot of wishy-washy lefty liberal sh**e, it does have credibility as a news source. Also, they've kept everything free, god bless 'em.

That said, I think The Economist is capable of cutting straight to the point of most issues. Before I make up my mind on a news item, I check The Economist.

TheLastMohican · 03-08-2015 03:26AM

Al Jazeera and BBC World Service.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-08-2015 03:29AM

Are people not liking the Guardian, or not liking anything to do with left-wing politics and therefore ridiculing it without even reading it...?

TheLastMohican · 03-08-2015 03:57AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are people not liking the Guardian, or not liking anything to do with left-wing politics and therefore ridiculing it without even reading it...?

Princess, I read, ingested and spouted The Grauniad for years in my 20s, 30s and even my 40s. But since then I've matured.

If one isn't a Socialist by 21, they've got no soul ............. if still one by 31 - they've got no brain.

Too many long haired men and short haired wimmin. That does my head in.

speedboatchase · 03-08-2015 06:41AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are people not liking the Guardian, or not liking anything to do with left-wing politics and therefore ridiculing it without even reading it...?

The Guardian is, much like UK Labour and its leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn, veering further to the Left despite the message sent by the electorate when they voted for the Tories. The Guardian seems to be doubling down on issues that don't concern the average person in the UK (gender politics/intersectional feminism/US policing) and ignoring or watering down issues that do (illegal immigration, Islamism). There's nothing wrong with left-wing politics but The Guardian is becoming a parody of itself, with a recent article about making sure future Mars colonies are free of white privilege and sexual assault perhaps the the perfect example.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-08-2015 08:58AM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Princess, I read, ingested and spouted The Grauniad for years in my 20s, 30s and even my 40s. But since then I've matured.

If one isn't a Socialist by 21, they've got no soul ............. if still one by 31 - they've got no brain.

Too many long haired men and short haired wimmin. That does my head in.

This kind if agrees with my post - you make no reference to the journalism, but is more a commentary of one branch of left wing politics (which, by the way, does not automatically mean socialism and socialism alone).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-08-2015 09:17AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

The Guardian is, much like UK Labour and its leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn, veering further to the Left despite the message sent by the electorate when they voted for the Tories. The Guardian seems to be doubling down on issues that don't concern the average person in the UK (gender politics/intersectional feminism/US policing) and ignoring or watering down issues that do (illegal immigration, Islamism). There's nothing wrong with left-wing politics but The Guardian is becoming a parody of itself, with a recent article about making sure future Mars colonies are free of white privilege and sexual assault perhaps the the perfect example.

I've read plenty of pieces about all those issues in the past, and one or two about us cops and gender politics in the tabloids.

As for the article: i take your point, but well, what would except from a science blog...? It raises an interesting question: will we corrupt Mars ad we have Earth. Interesting question if you're a scientist. But its hardly the front page headline.

But again - especially given your first sentence - it appears are using the thread to attack a political leaning and not the quality (or lack thereof) of a paper.

I'm nor saying you're wrong here: I'm just saying of the dozen or so people who've posted here against the guardian, I think you're only the second to actually have actually comment on it as a paper.

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

Comments