Topic: What news sources do ya guys use? (Read 493 times)
Live News on cryptoflip.epizy.com
Used Google News for awhile on my phone. Was fine, but I'd rather just pay for WSJ and read that. Wasn't a big fan of Google News 'curating' my news. Never really understood why anyone would like that, sounded like facebook with a ton of people posting bullshit all day.
After I blocked the bullshit what remains is a set of news sources that I want to read - including WSJ but also others, all in one place, including local news for a couple of different places that visit a lot. I like that. It helps when there is a controversial topic and multiple sources report it in slightly (or significantly) different ways. I even got Fox News on it for the
I guess this would help, though this does take a bit of work to ensure that all the bullshit is removed from your Google News. Just cause I'm curious, what providers of news do you leave on your google news? I was always so angry with all the bullshit that they were hitting me with, from VanityFair or Vice or whatever.
I'd be willing to give it another try, just would be nice to see who you use and then I'd continue to adjust my GN from there. Thanks SuchMoon.
I try not to rely too heavily into one news source. Sometimes you get into the habit of going to the same website due to I guess muscle memory. For example CNN. Even though I'm not a big fan of it, when I'm in front of the computer, just out of having I type in CNN.
Used Google News for awhile on my phone. Was fine, but I'd rather just pay for WSJ and read that. Wasn't a big fan of Google News 'curating' my news. Never really understood why anyone would like that, sounded like facebook with a ton of people posting bullshit all day.
After I blocked the bullshit what remains is a set of news sources that I want to read - including WSJ but also others, all in one place, including local news for a couple of different places that visit a lot. I like that. It helps when there is a controversial topic and multiple sources report it in slightly (or significantly) different ways. I even got Fox News on it for the
I'm finding babylonbee.com to be more and more accurate each day.
I am using BBC and CNN and I am pretty happy with the news I read.
I used to read NYT - i believe it is the best media website and media provider but I don't like the fact that I have to subscribe to them in order to read the news which is a free product for everyone.
I used to read NYT - i believe it is the best media website and media provider but I don't like the fact that I have to subscribe to them in order to read the news which is a free product for everyone.
Used Google News for awhile on my phone. Was fine, but I'd rather just pay for WSJ and read that. Wasn't a big fan of Google News 'curating' my news. Never really understood why anyone would like that, sounded like facebook with a ton of people posting bullshit all day.
Google News is a fucking joke. Google (and everyone else) want to force-feed crap down their throat without giving them and options. About a decade ago they figured that this ability give an entity the power to swing a vote like 10% (so it is said.) That's a lot of power.
The trouble is that the algorithms for what garbage to shove at people (on an individual basis) were simply incompatible with 'sort by date'. So what Google News did was to get rid of 'sort by date'.
'Freedom of choice' was a serious bug in the original implementation of the internet. Google and the rest are hell-bent on correcting this mistake. Unbelievably they are executing rapidly and effectively with almost none of you niggers(*) even noticing!
At least a decade ago (make that 'over 11 years from this date' to keep things all legal) I realized that Google didn't have any real problem gathering and making available information that people wanted or needed. The real problem they have is keeping people from accessing the 'wrong' information as they and their owners define it. 'Curating' information to be polite about it.
* with a nod of the hat to literary master Ken Kesey.
A bit embarrassed to admit but I just open some of the recommended videos by Youtube and articles by Google. It's usually non-political news that I watch/read so I don't worry much about their biases. Sometimes I would watch interview format shows like Rubin Report or Valuetainment (that interview with the Iraqi guy is in my Watch Later for days now) and most times they'd also talk about current affairs but that's pretty much it. I don't even watch local news except while having dinner (since TV is on at that time).
Let me know. Even if you guys have some sort of aggregate that you use (Like RealClearPolitics or Apple News, etc, anything is appreciated)
Google News. Yeah I know, big brother, but I created a brand new Google account with no search history and it works quite well, without nonsense like "you googled Tesla once so here's what Musk tweeted today". Offline feature is extremely useful when traveling.
BBC and NPR in the car, mostly because I can't stand ads and screaming and stupid sounds effects on commercial radio.
You should try podcasts in the car. Not all on my list, but NPR's 'The NPR politics podcast', 'Up First', and 'Planet Money' podcasts are all pretty good, and non-politics 'Click and Clack' and 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' are also available to listen on demand. BBC must have some good ones also.
I'm actually a pretty big listener of The Daily (NY Times), Freakonomics Radio, and The Journal (WSJ) Easy way to kill all of the commuting time in the car and learn about (in broad, and obvs a bit biased) things.
Let me know. Even if you guys have some sort of aggregate that you use (Like RealClearPolitics or Apple News, etc, anything is appreciated)
Google News. Yeah I know, big brother, but I created a brand new Google account with no search history and it works quite well, without nonsense like "you googled Tesla once so here's what Musk tweeted today". Offline feature is extremely useful when traveling.
BBC and NPR in the car, mostly because I can't stand ads and screaming and stupid sounds effects on commercial radio.
Used Google News for awhile on my phone. Was fine, but I'd rather just pay for WSJ and read that. Wasn't a big fan of Google News 'curating' my news. Never really understood why anyone would like that, sounded like facebook with a ton of people posting bullshit all day.
You should try podcasts in the car. Not all on my list, but NPR's 'The NPR politics podcast', 'Up First', and 'Planet Money' podcasts are all pretty good, and non-politics 'Click and Clack' and 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' are also available to listen on demand. BBC must have some good ones also.
I'm old school - I prefer live radio, catching up with the day's events and not having to fiddle with the phone in the car other than to switch to Spotify on longer trips when radio starts repeating the news.
Let me know. Even if you guys have some sort of aggregate that you use (Like RealClearPolitics or Apple News, etc, anything is appreciated)
Google News. Yeah I know, big brother, but I created a brand new Google account with no search history and it works quite well, without nonsense like "you googled Tesla once so here's what Musk tweeted today". Offline feature is extremely useful when traveling.
BBC and NPR in the car, mostly because I can't stand ads and screaming and stupid sounds effects on commercial radio.
You should try podcasts in the car. Not all on my list, but NPR's 'The NPR politics podcast', 'Up First', and 'Planet Money' podcasts are all pretty good, and non-politics 'Click and Clack' and 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' are also available to listen on demand. BBC must have some good ones also.
Let me know. Even if you guys have some sort of aggregate that you use (Like RealClearPolitics or Apple News, etc, anything is appreciated)
Google News. Yeah I know, big brother, but I created a brand new Google account with no search history and it works quite well, without nonsense like "you googled Tesla once so here's what Musk tweeted today". Offline feature is extremely useful when traveling.
BBC and NPR in the car, mostly because I can't stand ads and screaming and stupid sounds effects on commercial radio.
The piece does show how a Zerohedge headline about the document was flatly in error so it certainly does happen with Zerohedge from time to time.
If your standard is the reliability of the headline, then you can trash just about ever news organization in existence.
I think most of the news sources these days are biased and most of them are either funded by politicians or run the government propaganda to make a news positive to them. There are only few journalists who convey the truth in a good format so I try to find a reliable source everytime and read it completely.
I always thought it was weird to label "conspiracy theorists" "conspiracy 'theorists'".
In my opinion a conspiracy theorist is someone that takes a far fetched 'theory' and concludes that it's a fact. They aren't really 'theorizing' about anything, they draw conclusions and defend them at all costs.
Most 'conspiracy theorists' I know, and most assuredly myself, don't really even have 'theories'. We entertain a variety of often mutually exclusive hypotheses and as such welcome any real information which can help validate OR invalidate a hypothesis.
What is very aggravating is that if one has a hypothesis that, say, the big pharma and the CDC are colluding to down-play some of the deleterious effects of vaccines, pointing to information from either of these entities is simply not helpful in elucidating the details of the conjecture. At least not directly. While the information from the CDC and Merck may be 'rock solid proof' of vaccine safety to you, it is quite useless to me by the nature of the hypothesis itself. Alas, that is beyond most people's ability to conceptualize.
We know that 'conspiracies' happen all the time. They are probably more common then not whenever practically anything happens anywhere. And 'theories' are a standard element of the scientific method since the enlightenment period some centuries ago. Nothing ignoble about that...unless one is very very retrograde. Why is it that gluing the two words together creates in normies such a visceral negative reaction?
Well, there are 'conspiracy theories' which account for the normie's psychological reaction to the term 'conspiracy theory'. They revolve around a CIA document from 1967 released under FOIA in the 1970's describing to their media assets how to employ the term 'conspiracy theorist' to discredit an undesirable argument. A pretty good, if long-winded, exploration of that is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVOkxeW2-nA
The piece does show how a Zerohedge headline about the document was flatly in error so it certainly does happen with Zerohedge from time to time.
I prefer Zero Hedge just because I enjoy reminding people it is an aggregator every time they try to criticize it as a source while totally ignoring the content. I hear a lot of people around here prefer eating their own vomit and then reporting on it as they spew it out, but I am not a fan.
Pretty much all your zero hedge links are blog posts written by 'Tyler Durden', the a pseudonym for the anonymous conspiracy theory/alt-right bloggers who work for zerohedge. (their true identity was revealed a few years ago)Also, when I go to zerohedge.com the primary content is a list of Tyler Durdens 20 most recent blog posts. Of those blog posts, 5 of them give credit to an author other than Tyler Durden. It appears the other 15 blogs are written by the owner/founder of zerohedge.
zerohedge is an alt right/financial blog
If you're interested in what a news aggregator looks like, check out DrudgeReport.
The thread is called "What news sources do ya guys use?" not "TwittySeal Obsessively Beats His Wienerschnitzel Over Others Having The Audacity To Not Have The Same Opinions As His."
I thought "the a pseudonym" was Duden... make up your mind. "Pretty much all" of your generalizations are fucking bullshit. You remind me of those teachers in the 90's who would always say "the internet is not a valid source" regardless of who actually published it on the internet. The internet had valid sources even back then, but much like those teachers you are incapable of differentiating the value of anything you are not trained to accept.
At the very sound of the words "Zero Hedge" in your mind, like the sound of a bell, you are triggered to froth at the mouth by the mere existence of ideas outside of your bubble of confirmation bias. Knowing full well you would never be able to defend the ideas you have, challenged by the words contained within this venue of free thought, your only strategy is a blanket dismissal of everything contained within it to protect your precious and comforting confirmation bias.
Also, just for reference these are the current references on the Zero Hedge front page first 10 articles:
1. Reuters, Sky News Arabia, Fox News
2. Paul Krugman (direct source)
3. Reuters
4. Eric Margolis (author)
5. Bloomberg
6. The Guardian
7. the San Diego Union Tribune
8. Adil Abdul-Mahdi (direct source), The Saudi Gazette, Fort Russ News, Bloomberg, Egypt Today
8. The Baltic Dry Index, analyst Karel Mercx (direct source)
9. The New York Times, Business Insider, Stripes, The Nation, CNBC, Quartz, CBS News, Tom Dispatch, The Hill, CNN, Telegraph, Forbes, Politico, The Guardian, Washington Post, L.A. Times
10. NY Fed Repo Operations, Fed Liquidity Injections, Curvature Securities
What a filthy den of lunatics and conspiracy theories! Everyone go back to the controlled opposition Drudge Report! Not everyone has figured out Drudge doesn't control it anymore yet!
To be dead honest with you TecShare, I thought that most articles written on ZH were just Tyler Durden and weird conspiracy posts. Has a teacher in school who would always use ZH as their source for outlandish claims and the author was ALWAYS - TYLER DURDEN. Kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I've always hated ZH.
This info is actually pretty nice to hear. Thanks for that TS. I guess I'll use it as an aggregator now, just avoiding the TD posts.
Conspiracy.
Quote from: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy?s=t
conspiracy
[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Notice that a conspiracy can mean any group activity toward a goal (#5).
Every person who works with another person for a certain goal is a conspiracy. So, without clear knowledge of governmental activities, government might simply be a conspiracy by the officials in government... a conspiracy that allows them the freedom to get together and make all kinds of other conspiracies.
People who think that government is NOT a conspiracy, often have gotten together in simple agreement, to form a conspiracy to protect government conspiracies.
Consider all the talk in this forum section about Biden and Pelosi, and their conspiracies that used government funds and politics to promote wealth for themselves and their sons. Is it a conspiracy to talk about them like this? Where does conspiracy end? This forum, itself is a great big conspiracy according to at least part of the definition of "conspiracy."
I always thought it was weird to label "conspiracy theorists" "conspiracy 'theorists'".
In my opinion a conspiracy theorist is someone that takes a far fetched 'theory' and concludes that it's a fact. They aren't really 'theorizing' about anything, they draw conclusions and defend them at all costs.
"#CNNIsTrash Trends As Pushback Grows Against Oligarchic Election Meddling"
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/cnnistrash-trends-as-pushback-grows-against-oligarchic-election-meddling-55d11cea2796
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/cnnistrash-trends-as-pushback-grows-against-oligarchic-election-meddling-55d11cea2796
I try not to focus too much on the same old political talk, so I mainly go to my local news website. Check out what's been going on around the city.
I prefer Zero Hedge just because I enjoy reminding people it is an aggregator every time they try to criticize it as a source while totally ignoring the content. I hear a lot of people around here prefer eating their own vomit and then reporting on it as they spew it out, but I am not a fan.
Pretty much all your zero hedge links are blog posts written by 'Tyler Durden', the a pseudonym for the anonymous conspiracy theory/alt-right bloggers who work for zerohedge. (their true identity was revealed a few years ago)Also, when I go to zerohedge.com the primary content is a list of Tyler Durdens 20 most recent blog posts. Of those blog posts, 5 of them give credit to an author other than Tyler Durden. It appears the other 15 blogs are written by the owner/founder of zerohedge.
zerohedge is an alt right/financial blog
If you're interested in what a news aggregator looks like, check out DrudgeReport.
The thread is called "What news sources do ya guys use?" not "TwittySeal Obsessively Beats His Wienerschnitzel Over Others Having The Audacity To Not Have The Same Opinions As His."
I thought "the a pseudonym" was Duden... make up your mind. "Pretty much all" of your generalizations are fucking bullshit. You remind me of those teachers in the 90's who would always say "the internet is not a valid source" regardless of who actually published it on the internet. The internet had valid sources even back then, but much like those teachers you are incapable of differentiating the value of anything you are not trained to accept.
At the very sound of the words "Zero Hedge" in your mind, like the sound of a bell, you are triggered to froth at the mouth by the mere existence of ideas outside of your bubble of confirmation bias. Knowing full well you would never be able to defend the ideas you have, challenged by the words contained within this venue of free thought, your only strategy is a blanket dismissal of everything contained within it to protect your precious and comforting confirmation bias.
Also, just for reference these are the current references on the Zero Hedge front page first 10 articles:
1. Reuters, Sky News Arabia, Fox News
2. Paul Krugman (direct source)
3. Reuters
4. Eric Margolis (author)
5. Bloomberg
6. The Guardian
7. the San Diego Union Tribune
8. Adil Abdul-Mahdi (direct source), The Saudi Gazette, Fort Russ News, Bloomberg, Egypt Today
8. The Baltic Dry Index, analyst Karel Mercx (direct source)
9. The New York Times, Business Insider, Stripes, The Nation, CNBC, Quartz, CBS News, Tom Dispatch, The Hill, CNN, Telegraph, Forbes, Politico, The Guardian, Washington Post, L.A. Times
10. NY Fed Repo Operations, Fed Liquidity Injections, Curvature Securities
What a filthy den of lunatics and conspiracy theories! Everyone go back to the controlled opposition Drudge Report! Not everyone has figured out Drudge doesn't control it anymore yet!
To be dead honest with you TecShare, I thought that most articles written on ZH were just Tyler Durden and weird conspiracy posts. Has a teacher in school who would always use ZH as their source for outlandish claims and the author was ALWAYS - TYLER DURDEN. Kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I've always hated ZH.
This info is actually pretty nice to hear. Thanks for that TS. I guess I'll use it as an aggregator now, just avoiding the TD posts.
Conspiracy.
Quote from: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy?s=t
conspiracy
[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Notice that a conspiracy can mean any group activity toward a goal (#5).
Every person who works with another person for a certain goal is a conspiracy. So, without clear knowledge of governmental activities, government might simply be a conspiracy by the officials in government... a conspiracy that allows them the freedom to get together and make all kinds of other conspiracies.
People who think that government is NOT a conspiracy, often have gotten together in simple agreement, to form a conspiracy to protect government conspiracies.
Consider all the talk in this forum section about Biden and Pelosi, and their conspiracies that used government funds and politics to promote wealth for themselves and their sons. Is it a conspiracy to talk about them like this? Where does conspiracy end? This forum, itself is a great big conspiracy according to at least part of the definition of "conspiracy."
I prefer Zero Hedge just because I enjoy reminding people it is an aggregator every time they try to criticize it as a source while totally ignoring the content. I hear a lot of people around here prefer eating their own vomit and then reporting on it as they spew it out, but I am not a fan.
Pretty much all your zero hedge links are blog posts written by 'Tyler Durden', the a pseudonym for the anonymous conspiracy theory/alt-right bloggers who work for zerohedge. (their true identity was revealed a few years ago)Also, when I go to zerohedge.com the primary content is a list of Tyler Durdens 20 most recent blog posts. Of those blog posts, 5 of them give credit to an author other than Tyler Durden. It appears the other 15 blogs are written by the owner/founder of zerohedge.
zerohedge is an alt right/financial blog
If you're interested in what a news aggregator looks like, check out DrudgeReport.
The thread is called "What news sources do ya guys use?" not "TwittySeal Obsessively Beats His Wienerschnitzel Over Others Having The Audacity To Not Have The Same Opinions As His."
I thought "the a pseudonym" was Duden... make up your mind. "Pretty much all" of your generalizations are fucking bullshit. You remind me of those teachers in the 90's who would always say "the internet is not a valid source" regardless of who actually published it on the internet. The internet had valid sources even back then, but much like those teachers you are incapable of differentiating the value of anything you are not trained to accept.
At the very sound of the words "Zero Hedge" in your mind, like the sound of a bell, you are triggered to froth at the mouth by the mere existence of ideas outside of your bubble of confirmation bias. Knowing full well you would never be able to defend the ideas you have, challenged by the words contained within this venue of free thought, your only strategy is a blanket dismissal of everything contained within it to protect your precious and comforting confirmation bias.
Also, just for reference these are the current references on the Zero Hedge front page first 10 articles:
1. Reuters, Sky News Arabia, Fox News
2. Paul Krugman (direct source)
3. Reuters
4. Eric Margolis (author)
5. Bloomberg
6. The Guardian
7. the San Diego Union Tribune
8. Adil Abdul-Mahdi (direct source), The Saudi Gazette, Fort Russ News, Bloomberg, Egypt Today
8. The Baltic Dry Index, analyst Karel Mercx (direct source)
9. The New York Times, Business Insider, Stripes, The Nation, CNBC, Quartz, CBS News, Tom Dispatch, The Hill, CNN, Telegraph, Forbes, Politico, The Guardian, Washington Post, L.A. Times
10. NY Fed Repo Operations, Fed Liquidity Injections, Curvature Securities
What a filthy den of lunatics and conspiracy theories! Everyone go back to the controlled opposition Drudge Report! Not everyone has figured out Drudge doesn't control it anymore yet!
To be dead honest with you TecShare, I thought that most articles written on ZH were just Tyler Durden and weird conspiracy posts. Has a teacher in school who would always use ZH as their source for outlandish claims and the author was ALWAYS - TYLER DURDEN. Kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I've always hated ZH.
This info is actually pretty nice to hear. Thanks for that TS. I guess I'll use it as an aggregator now, just avoiding the TD posts.
Jump to: