"Good" Sources Of News

[MrBump]

The NoW thing has got me thinking more and more about the levels of trust that we have in the media, and sources of news in particular.  I have a fairly cynical stance, but a relatively liberal political view - I guess that means that I regard MOST sources of news as biased in some way, and I struggle to believe ANYTHING that I read or see on the TV.

I think that the guys on this forum cover a broad political spectrum, and range from those that "can't be arsed" to those that are political activists.  So I'm intrigued by what people believe to be "good" media/news sources?

Personally, I don't read newspapers (only local ones).  My dad when he was alive used to read the Morning Star, but I don't exactly share his viewpoint...

In terms of TV news, I tend to watch the BBC.  I know it's not entirely apolitical, but I think it's relatively balanced in an unbalanced world. 

Occasionally I check out fringe consipricy theorist websites, and David Ickes publications if I REALLY want to scare myself.

Where do you guys get your information from?

Mark.

[nfe]

I read The Guardian everyday and also buy either a Telegraph or Times so you get the same stories covered from their almost equally biased positions in either direction (though, in fairness, the Guardian is less leftist than the other two are rightist).

Don't have a TV, but I watch last night's news at ten on iPlayer most mornings. Watch Al Jazeera now and again.

Should particular stories take my interest I'll hunt for a few articles from different sources online, too.

[Dmoney]

I read The Guardian everyday and also buy either a Telegraph or Times so you get the same stories covered from their almost equally biased positions in either direction (though, in fairness, the Guardian is less leftist than the other two are rightist).

Don't have a TV, but I watch last night's news at ten on iPlayer most mornings. Watch Al Jazeera now and again.

Should particular stories take my interest I'll hunt for a few articles from different sources online, too.

+1

I work at the BBC and have done for a number of years now. It's my belief that the BBC news coverage has got steadily more biased and is currently pretty anti labour/unions, for example. That's just the impression I get from nearly 4 years of solidly watching News 24 til I can barely stomach it.

like NFE says. I think you just have to read as much as you can and try to piece together a balanced picture and make your own decision about how you feel regarding it.

[Elliot]

Its funny that those on the left think that the BBC is rightist (eg its anti-union stance) and those on the right think the BBC is leftist (eg its anti-Israel stance) - Which gives rise to the question, is it because it is in the middle or does the BBC speak with a forked tongue depending on its area of coverage?

[plastercaster]

Guardian, BBC, Times, Independent for me
I try to avoid sources tied up with big corporations if possible, and to read around. Although most news sources cover most news, stuff that the guardian gives a low profile to may well be brought to the fore by more rightwing rags, and vice versa.
I should also really start watching AL Jazeera because I'm getting a huge western bias at present.

[plastercaster]

Its funny that those on the left think that the BBC is rightist (eg its anti-union stance) and those on the right think the BBC is leftist (eg its anti-Israel stance) - Which gives rise to the question, is it because it is in the middle or does the BBC speak with a forked tongue depending on its area of coverage?

I remember hearing one guy from high up in the Beeb saying he knows electoral coverage is right when it gets equal numbers of bias complaints from labour and conservative viewers  :lol:

[dave_mc]

well my local paper tried to say that oslo was the capital of finland last week.

and in the past claimed that martin luther king invented christmas tree lights.

so yeah, that one's out. :lol:

when i get round to reading any it's normally the guardian. it's not perfect (not by a long shot) but, for me anyway, it's the best of a bad bunch.

independent isn't bad too, though very short. you always feel like you've been ripped when you buy it.

actually the ft is pretty good, though a bit annoying to read on that cr@ppy pink paper. and expensive.

[nfe]

On the left right bias in the grand scheme of things, it's likely worth remembering that economically ALL mainstream UK press outlets are rightist, and socially all are centre left or leftist, just to differing degrees. By British standards the Daily Mail is very right socially, but it isn't at all if you take the entire spectrum of political ideologies into account, for instance.

The most important thing is to make sure you read a broad range and not just the outlets with an editorial stance closest to your own outlook. ie, don't just read The Guardian and the Independent nor only The Times and The Telegraph.

And if it's got capitalised headlines, avoid :lol:

[Alex]

I follow BBC and Guardian for UK news, then Spiegel and Financial Times Deutschland for Germany, mostly online.
I think a mix of various sources is always best and if you can throw in some foreign source all the better.

Sadly, I have no paper subscription anymore (except for National Geographic, but that's not a news magazine), so it's all online for me except for the periodic free newspapers when I fly abroad.

[gwEm]

actually the ft is pretty good, though a bit annoying to read on that cr@ppy pink paper. and expensive.

Yes, i agree. Thats the one I read when I (rarely) read a paper. Otherwise its BBC News 24.

edit: I also Spiegel is good too, I sometimes look at the online one, which has some articles in English. In earlier days when I lived in Germany and my German was better I used to read the paper version.

[Lezard]

I just piece thing together from peoples facebook status' , repeats of "Have I got news for you" and the Onion .

I've had too much of this lately

Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.

[38thBeatle]

I can very much be arsed to try to keep up with what is going on but I agree that it is very hard to get to the truth of just about anything. I have read most of the British daily papers over the years and I decided long ago that they were not worth the effort. I think that their sales have been in decline for a while now and whilst that may or may not be due to increased migration to the internet, I suspect that the tittle tattle that they report puts many people off. I do like to read news sites from other countries but of course there is the likelihood that they will have their agendas which might not be apparent if you are reading it in another language or relying upon a translation where cultural subtleties might be obscured.
All you can do is to seek information from as many sources as possible. I also like to see what is being said by those I absolutely don't agree with a) to hear what they have to say and b) to examine my own views. This NOTW business is very depressing both because of what they have done but also because it is exactly the sort of level I'd expect them to stoop to.

[Andrew W]

I think the issue of bias, as everyone has said, is nigh on insurmountable and all you can do is read several sources with known biases and triangulate your own stance from that. I tend to use Twitter and Instapaper a lot to do this. I follow a fair number of people on Twitter and when they link to something interesting (and often from a publication of which I've never heard) I save the article to Instapaper and then when I have time I can read my collected articles and digest the overall effect. I also find Twitter to be far better than any other outlet for tracking breaking news. It does depend upon who you follow of course!

If I have time I also read The Economist, which I only agree with in small parts but is at least rigourous with statistics and factual research and I do have a subscription to Private Eye which is a pretty good read provided you allow for the fact it's written by a group of former public school Oxbridge males and factor that into your analysis.

[dave_mc]

On the left right bias in the grand scheme of things, it's likely worth remembering that economically ALL mainstream UK press outlets are rightist, and socially all are centre left or leftist, just to differing degrees. By British standards the Daily Mail is very right socially, but it isn't at all if you take the entire spectrum of political ideologies into account, for instance.

The most important thing is to make sure you read a broad range and not just the outlets with an editorial stance closest to your own outlook. ie, don't just read The Guardian and the Independent nor only The Times and The Telegraph.

And if it's got capitalised headlines, avoid :lol:

i dunno, the guardian's economics section is pretty lefty.

And yeah, I mean I understand about reading a wide variety, but at the same time if i only have time (or more accurately can only be bothered) reading one I'm probably going to read the one I most agree with. I've read the others enough to know what they're generally on about, but if i read something like the mail i just end up annoying myself, lol. even the times. I'm well aware the guardian is biased, i raeg at it pretty frequently too, but at least it rarely actually puts me in a bad mood. plus my contrarian nature means i'm likely to disagree with whatever i read (or at least look for places where i disagree).

:)

EDIT: the other thing i'd say about bias is that the truth isn't necessarily in the middle. it can be anywhere from one extreme to the other (or if you're really unlucky no-one has hit upon it).