Topic: What news sources do ya guys use? - page 2. (Read 501 times)

I start from news feed from social media and then move to paper newspapers. I am not a very much fan of digital news but I do go through inshorts app later in the night. For newspapapers, I prefer to read atleast 2 newspapers daily. One can be all about business and other about current affairs.

Spectacular butchering of the analogy. Pot, meet kettle.

I watched the entire 10 minute interview on Fox.
You read a zerohedge blog that included a 4 second and 3 second quote from the same interview.
 
They were mashed potato sausages in a pig casing to begin with.  I just ate them to see what they tasted like because I was curious.  
You had Zerohedge slice them open and scoop out a teaspoon of the mashed potatoes and then serve it as a side to a perfectly cooked porterhouse and a glass of Macallan 18 and now you think you know what mashed potato sausages in pig casings taste like.

I'll stop derailing this thread now, maybe we name an official 'fuck twitchyseal and his stupid opinions thread'.  apologies to OP.

Uh, no. We both might eat mashed potatoes. Just because I eat the mashed potatoes with a fork and you suck them through a rotting pig intestine doesn't make it any less of mashed potatoes, but it clearly isn't a healthy or efficient method of consuming them. It is by no means the same thing.

Also you:

Forgot to mention I'm a podcast addict with many news related podcast subscriptions, posted a list here a few days ago.

---

So do you.

The only difference is I watch the actual interviews on TV and you read blogs that quote snippets of the TV interview with commentary.  Why not just watch the interview and cut out the zerohedge commentary?

For example, you recently posted a link to a zerohedge blog which quoted two sentences from a Chris Wallace interview with Pences Chief of Staff on cable news.



In my opinion, anything the VPs chief of staff is relevant and worth watching - the fact it's on TV doesn't mean it's fake.  There's plenty of cable news bullshit to sift through, but letting someone else sift through it for you just creates more bullshit.

You get any of your news from TV. That is all I need to know about your standards. I like the "I am not bias" virtue signalling too. very believable.

Translation:

Twitch works at a place which has 100% corporate news and listens to one of them at a time.

In his free time Twitch reads corporate rags which carry to works of 'famous' shills.

Twitch is very diligent and reads every word of the ridiculous cover-ups of events sponsored by corp/gov.

For 'diversity' Twitch scans 'alt-right' publications which were either corrupt charades from the get-go or gobbled up by corp/gov money.

The only thing Twitch instinctively avoids are real independent and alternative sites(*).

This profile explains all one needs to know about why the guy is the way he is.  To my great humiliation I was very much the same way for much of my adult life so there is some hope.


* I actually don't read naturalnews very much myself.  I just cannot get myself to be very confident in Mike Adams.  He has mostly good stuff and is well beyond most other well known pundits when it comes to have a grasp on technical issues, but some blatant errors are mixed in with his material as well and is not cautious enough to be a good scientist.  Mostly, though, it's that having anything to do with 'Infowars' is a big red flag after their performance of the last half decade when they either changed radically or blew their cover.

As many as possible.

Where I work usually has CNN, Fox, FoxBuiness, MSNBC and CNBC on all next to each other.  If something interesting is happening we'll alternate which one gets unmuted.  In general I'm more partial to particular anchors over networks.  I prefer CNNs 7-10am anchors, MSNBCs Ari Melbur and Chris Wallace by far does the best interviews Sundays on Fox.

Anytime there's a "BOMBSHELL NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc ARTICLE", I try to basically ignore the reporting and just read what the actual journalist wrote, even if it's really really long.

Also goes with any big government reports.  I try spend significantly more time reading the actual report than reporting on the report.  I read every word of the Mueller report over the course of 2 months for example.

I follow journalists I respect on Twitter. Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi)  is an incredible journalist that knows a shitload about what's actually happening in the middle east.  Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) and Michael Schmidt (@nytmike) both have some very reliable high level White House sources, to name a few.

A bunch of Politicians on Twitter.

I check out Drudge report regularly to try and keep my personal bias in check and also go out of my way to read alt-right news sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller ,blogs like Zero Hedge and r/the_donald.  Will occasionally check out straight up Russia propaganda at RT.com and sputniknews.com

Really the only sites I just ignore are the ones that BADecker likes to post like naturalnews.com (almost entirely nonsense)

I use the Guardian a lot. It is financially and editorially independent, and owned by a Trust whose purpose is to ensure that this remains the case. Of course everything has inherent biases, but I think the Guardian is trying hard to be impartial. They have a solid track record on breaking big stories that make uncomfortable reading for the establishment, most notably in recent years the NSA/ Edward Snowden stuff.

That said, an echo chamber is an echo chamber, and its not healthy to immerse yourself in only one viewpoint. If there is any particular contentious international event that I'm interested in, I tend to have a look at how news is presented from both sides, so I'll check out BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera etc... but not to rely solely on any of them, more to get as close to a balanced perspective as is possible.

Plus of course I come on here, which is a good melting pot of varied views. There are some intelligent, well-informed people on here, as well as some absolute lunatics "characters". And I love you all!

I really try to stay clear of the T.V news stations unless it specifically pertains to local based news that is within my surrounding area. Whenever there is a snowstorm or other warnings the local news stations are pretty up to speed on a lot of topics, no matter what channel the local news is being reported on. When national news hits the television I tend to go online to further corroborate the stories first because some channels tend to be biased towards certain political parties and beliefs and what not.

I dont trust one source at all or any single aggregator as i feel the feeds are somewhere somewhat left or right inclined. I generally read news from multiple sources and my college provides its own writings about top current affairs related to both macro and societal topics. This way I get the whole picture from both ends and form my neutral or biased opinion.

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!

Basically no media companies at all..

Haven't really put much effort watching international news, I just tap on what I see on my recommended on Youtube (yes, that's where I get my news). In general I stay away from vids CNN and NYT. I'd tap on Fox sometimes but I try to remind myself of their bias as well. Same with RT and BBC.

Basically if there's an incident (like the bridge attack) I try to watch vids from different media outfits. Done this way it's often easy to see what details each are trying to ignore. I do the same with my local news.

I use Bitcointalk to see if Badecker, Techshare, and people of their ilk have linked to anything interesting.  Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

I scan my own private list of Jewtube channels (or former Jewtube peeps who got censored off the platform and moved to bitchute or whatever.)  I never use Jewtube's 'like' or 'subscribe' features or anything like that because I don't want to help them (analyze me), and almost never comment since I'm normally shadow-banned.  My list of people worth listening to is always on the drift, but currently includes the likes of:

 - Last American Vagabond
 - Israel News Live
 - Trunews
 - KnowMoreNews

to find reliable links to real information and the take on events from people who don't seem to be Ziocon hacks, shills, lackies, and cucks of that class. Ziocons own the mainstream media which is part of the reason it isn't worth even skimming, so why should I waste any time with the likes of Brieghtbart?  Same shit, different asshole for the most part.

As for aggregators, I first reach for 'antiwar.com' and have for decades.

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.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/

http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/

It's not that they're bigotted, it's that their business is on its on deathbed and they're desperately trying to get it going by adding some shitty clickbait-ish news which's never occured to these respectable publishers before

wsJ and nyt are both bigotted.

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.

P.S. don't start emulating Twatler and Nutilduuuhhh with their pathological need to silence people who don't agree with them. Requiring the purging of ideas you don't approve of is mental illness. Unlike them, you have the ability to make a logical retort that doesn't rely on operant conditioning or social shaming, thus you don't require a means to silence any critical words spoken in your presence. You still have a choice to not be an angry impotent little girl taking her ball and going home to talk with it safe in her closet of confirmation bias.