Topic: What news sources do ya guys use? (Read 501 times)

Live News on cryptoflip.epizy.com

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.

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 lulz in-depth reporting on AOC that I couldn't possibly get anywhere else.

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.

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).

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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 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

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.

Conspiracy.


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."

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.

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.

I'm pretty stuck on using WSJ and NYTimes for my news these days, not paying for it anymore thankfully (thanks Twitchy) because of (https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome) which is beyond helpful. Pretty big fan of both sites for news, though I do like the WSJ editorial section more.

Wanted to know if everyone else could share the news sources that they use and like, maybe even some authors in particular, etc. Always looking for a new reputable source of 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)


This is going to be a self moderated thread, so please don't sig spam or I'll delete it, thanks