Do you Google search and click on whatever news sources come up or do you look into the news sources leanings, news reporting quality, and credibility? Maybe just if you can vibe with it or not in general?
Simplified
Do you save a list of specific news sites? Or do you just click on anything just to read that specific story on a search engine?
Me personally: I have a set list of sites I check. I know that they are credible and trust worthy to the public, being non profits and them having high standards to news reporting. (some of them include Npr, and Ap news) Most of their news stories are intended to benefit the public. Of course they aren’t always perfect, but a solid choice, especially if you’re starting out on picking a specific news source.
How about you all?
I mostly cut out the live news cycle from my life. There’s really no benefit in keeping up with the immediacy of the live news cycle.
I still have the guardian news app just for the breaking news alerts in case of something major. The only reason I use this is that they tend to send the least number of bullshit notifications (e.g. no shit about British royal family drama).
I’m finding the news experience is much better when I catch a summary of the news story a few days later when the situation is better understood and developed. I get almost all my news from the TLDR news YouTube channel.
If you are going to use a news site, then I would suggest using it through an RSS reader app. That way the news comes through chronologically. If you do this, you get away from the bullshit prioritisation of stories on news websites.
I get all my news from memes.
And yay -Pw for arch linux news.
I read them all. I treat them like a prosecutor would treat witness testimony.
You read all of the news?
All the news I can.
ground news is really good.
My issue with ground news is it doesn’t give any weight to funding sources when making its’ bias ratings, which makes it easy for billionaire-funded media conglomerates with a “neutral and unbiased” front to fly under the radar.
While I do have Ground News installed on my iPad, I only use it as a widget to let me know what’s going on. The sources it uses are generally not that great. Either the site is severely biased or the site is riddled with ads and pop ups. Basically every time I go to read an article it’s full of shit. I’ll give it credit as a substantial aggregator but it’s still pulling from sources that use click bait headlines. It’s not any better than social media.
Valid criticism. It’s good to get an idea of what’s going on in the media landscape. It’s not good as a high quality source.
AllSides is a good one too
I get my news from Lemmy primarily.
Not a bad source actually since, you’re atleast getting mostly stories posted/shared by regular individuals and not a search engine algorithm throwing the same few sites all the time at you.
I use Lemmy as one of my secondary primary sources for news, while not my major, which happens to be a small handful of nonprofit ones. For tech news particularly, Lemmy users tend to do pretty good at sharing some good stories.
I use ground.news and only read from the sources marked High Factuality
How do you decide on which news sources to read?
If a news outlet has indicated to me that they care more about ad revenue than reporting news, I avoid them.
If the only way an outlet feels they can get readership is with use of clickbait headlines, I avoid them.
If the headline is something like “you’ll never guess why ___ hates this” or “the reason you can’t blahblahblah” or some other salacious bullshit or they have a super cringe thumbnail on their YT video, I avoid them.
If a writer misconstrues the words of a celebrity or political leader for their own narrative, I avoid them.
If their bias prevents them from reporting the facts of an event, I avoid them.
“Avoid” does not mean never visit. It means I try not to and if I do I proceed with caution and skepticism with the intent to get another source.If I’m searching for a news story, it’s probably because I came across it on social media (Lemmy) or a blog and want to get credible information. Or because someone here is quoting a story and I have a hunch they’re misinformed. I use DuckDuckGo and generally get decent reputable results at the top. At its face, I will never trust Google for fact checking. If I end up at a wiki page, I often check their sources.
I have an extensive list of reputable and/or diverse outlets in my RSS reader. The only “mainstream” American sources are NYT, AP, NPR, and Reuters. I’ve been using BigNews as my RSS reader for a year or so now. I really like its simple interface and ability to subscribe to newsletters. Newsletters are sometimes the best way to get a blurb off the news without subscribing to something like NYT. If I’m compelled enough, I’ll run a paywalled article through archive.is.
I don’t feel that people publishing on substack or medium, etc are reputable outlets for general news. That’s great for specific topics, opinions, and focused reporting.
The only news I pay for is my local newspaper. In addition to local reporting, they curate AP articles.
That’s easy! None of them.
I posted this in a different thread a while back. Here are some primary news sources:
- New York Times (NYT)
- Reuters
- Associated Press (AP)
- BBC News
- The Guardian
- Al Jazeera
- Bloomberg
- The Washington Post
- CNN
- Deutsche Welle (DW)
Waiting for room temperature IQs to start shrieking about CNN
They should give lite.cnn.com a try.
as far as a collection of news, I get a lot of it from 1440, which compiles current, objective news stories reliably.
I get ideas from the posts here, but I’m pretty careful about checking multiple sources before accepting any of the articles people post here as legitimate information.
I heard of services like this that do this or similar I haven’t;t actually checked one out long enough to see how well it works myself.
a lot of aggregators just throw shit together, but 1440 works pretty hard on making sure their articles are simply reporting significant news from reliable sources.
I can tell a lot about a source’s bias by the question(s) they state and the answer they claim to have.
Does the answer they give match the question?
Does the question even have a relevant/importantly relevant answer, or is it unknowable to the point of lacking usefullness?
Some people would be shocked to realize just how much crap gets caught by those two things, for me at least. Obviously Fox [or really insert your least favorite source] isnt publishing 100% truths, but sources that myself and those with similar ideals seem to more frequently trust, publish crap articles pretty frequently too.
Seems like a lot of news stories quote AP news so I just read from the source.
RSS feeder pulling articles from sources of my choosing, mostly primary sources like AP and Reuters.
I subscribe to podcasts for opinion and commentary on that news, and just find stuff that mostly aligns with my values and philosophies.
Never just one source, ever. For specific resources, newswires can be more or less good. I’ll often also use some sort of news aggregators like news.google.com as well as forums like Mbin and Lemmy to initially hear about things - if I want to go digging them I start checking out different resources.
Lemmy, imgur, Telegram (mostly for Ukrainian updates), then some news outlets on YouTube (Reuters, AP, NHK).
