Where Do You Get Your News?

[Oniya]

This thread is for recommending YouTube channels, podcasts, streaming radio, and other news sources, with an emphasis on those that do a good job at presenting facts.  (Conspiracy sites do not belong here.)

Personally, I'm an active news reader, so I don't have many specific favorites myself (I'll search names and bits of headlines to try to find out why something has hit the news,) but we'd love to see some recommendations.

If possible, give a brief description of the channel and what their focus is. 

[Lilias]

Our radio alarm clock is synched to BBC Radio 4, so I get about half an hour's worth of news before I have to get up; a full hour if it's not a work day and we're lying in. Often that's all the news I get for the day. If we sit through TV news, that's the local BBC station as well. Among written sources, I gravitate towards the Guardian, the Atlantic, and To Vima (for Greek news). Fully aware of the progressive leanings of most of my sources but I'm more concerned with fact checks than whether their bias is too much or not enough.

[Haibane]

Pretty much the BBC whose website is freely available worldwide. They do have their biases though. Pretty left wing and fairly anti-Boris Johnson.

[Kathadon]

This is a rather good subject so lets start with cable in America.

PBS's News Hour only, and even this has started to grate when they veer into culture war issues. I actively try and avoid cable news since 2012 as I grew sick of the hyper partisanship, corporatocratic, and establishment cheerleading. Anyone that uses McCarthy like smears against their opponents on either side gets an eyeroll, and put on my not serious journalist list. If I do end up on a story that is sourced to one of them, I actively go out of my way and find the same information on the ideological opponent's view as well. Ever since several cases in court have been argued that X prime time hosts are only an entertainer/op-ed source, I dismiss all of them out of hand. I find Tucker, Hannity, Stelter, Lemon, Cuomo, and Maddow to be the worst at this. CNN has a number of hosts that have gotten just terrible in the last 2 years. Cuomo's interviews with his brother, the governor of New York, are just straight propaganda and a master class in conflict of interests.

BBC, RT (Russia Today America), and Al-jazeera America. These I watch for views from outside of the American corporate media bubble on foreign policy, and ongoing military actions. Always take them with a hefty grain of salt, but they can be enlightening about ongoing conflicts.

For political entertainment I often watch Real Time with Bill Maher as his guests are usually promising, although this became far less so under Trump, but I prefer conversations to bits. The Daily Show alumni I know are as bad as John Stewart ever was at the deceptively edited interview, and biased one sided stories. But without the originator's charisma of comedic chops to back it up.  They can give their viewers a semblance of knowledge on a topic, basically a mile wide but just an inch deep. They use the excuse that as "comedians" they do not have to be 100% factual or unbiased to explain this away, and I understand how propaganda works so....

The Internet:

Mornings I avidly used to watch the Hill's you tube channel. I still catch it every other day. They actively attempt to balance the hosts and stories. They recently had their main hosts of their morning show split and go independent media, and I have switched to their program mostly. They are a good balance of Left and Right populist from insiders in the news industry and often tackle subjects that I have been amazed the Hill has allowed.

Kyle Kulinski's Secular Talk. Kyle is a fairly good left progressive, and is one of the founders of the Justice Democrats. He does aggregate news and gives his opinion on it. Currently he is also doing a podcast with Krystal Ball that is very left, but has had good guests so far.

Tim Pool/ Tim Cast. Tim is a disaffected Liberal/Democrat and former Vice/Fusion journalist that used to do on the ground reporting from protests. He does aggregate news and gives his opinion on it. My views seem to match his mostly, including seeing Trump as a symptom, and not the cause of the problems in America. He went hard however in the opposite direction during the election. Thinking Trump could win, and cheerleading for him, which turned me off to him somewhat. He also has veered heavily into the culture war stuff. He too has a pod cast that often has VERY right leaning guests on, and I watch sometimes to get their view on things.

Joe Rogan. Excellent and perhaps the best long form interviewer we have at this time. A modern Gen-X Larry King. Topics vary from sports, to science, to politics, to medicine, to technology, to comedy. Joe is a master at having a compelling and often entertaining and thought provoking conversations. He freely admits he is just an average dude that talks to VERY smart people, so take Joe's opinions with that very large grain of salt. But usually I am there for the guest's view point, not Joe's, he is just the interviewer.

I used to like The Young Turks, but man they are so wishy washy on being progressives. They are just another MSNBC to me at this point, and tow the corporate line. Also they throw around McCarthy like Russian agent nonsense as a smear at other journalists which lead to me dismissing them outright.

The Dark Horse Podcast. Brett and Heather Wienstein's podcast. They rose to infamy during the Evergreen College Protests. Former teachers, biologists, and disaffected Liberal/Democrats, they are founders of the IDW which includes a number of left to right of center individuals. They have been on the forefront of things during the pandemic, and were one of the first to keep the Lab Leak hypothesis kicking when most main stream sources claimed it was a conspiracy theory. They are currently trying to raise awareness of Ivermectin, a readily available drug, and its use to treat Covid-19, how knowledge of it might be being suppressed in order to enable Big Pharma to make a fortune on vaccines, and how tech censorship in an ongoing pandemic can actually harm people. If even half of what they have theorized is correct it is grossly negligent and criminal, and at the least is worthy of long term study.

Ben Shapiro. Typical conservative neo-con. I dislike his views, but find his arguments among the most often forwarded by conservatives. So hearing them first hand from the source can be helpful in formulating my arguments. Also like a broken clock he can be correct sometimes.

I often listen to various other podcasts from smaller creators like The Vanguard and the Lotus Eaters. Again I balance left with right. I also listen to Twitch debate channels if the subject is interesting.

Like most people on the internet I have several news aggregated feeds. Yahoo and Google being the most prominent. I do not use Facebook period. So I often get stories from the Atlantic, AP, CBS, NBC, local papers, Business Insider, Time, Times of Israel, The Guardian, Daily Mail, etc. etc.

Because I am so eclectic in my news consumption, I find I get a far healthier diet in my news feeds than loved ones and friends that stay within hyper partisan circles. Shockingly so.

Reading list: Currently I am browsing "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them" & "The 48 Laws of Power" and I recommend both books from what I have read so far.

[Andol]

Guess I can try my best at this, because really for me I don't have cable so is whatever I run on my X-box in the background is what I get. While I don't know the background of many of my favorite channels... I will stick to what I like and basic details.

1. Tim Pool/ Timcast- This is the one I usually go to first, because the subjects they talk about on the podcast vary enough to provide me with entertainment and the news. Yeah he has a lot of right-leaning guest on, but he has had a few left leaning guest on to talk with as well.

2. Joe Rogen Experience- I watched a lot more of his podcast until he went over to Spotify, but the information I get from him has always been really good. Plus he always fact checks right there on the show right in the middle of interviews. So it has always been a fun watch.

3. The Quartering/ Midwestly- This is a much smaller channel hosted by a guy named Jeremy and when compared to the others, and covers entertainment news/ daily event news. The host slant at being right-leaning is obvious, but he does call out the right when they do stupid stuff too including Trump, but this is just less common. During the    Trump admiration and election he was all for the guy, but I would say afterward he points out all the promises broken to people who voted for him. His channel was one of the first news style ones I started following seriously and it is his entertainment style of being just a relatable dude that gives his opinions on stuff that has kept me around more than anything.

4. TFI Global- This channel, though nationalistic towards its home country in its slant, does at least a good enough job of providing news about subjects aka what is going on in Eastern countries with the China situation in a way that keeps me up to date. Yet hopeful at the same time that the US isn't the only country that is going to handle China's shit. Yeah I know weird reason to watch a channel, but hey... you guys wanted to know XD. I admit they do spend too much time these days hating on Biden, but I think that context is one based on worry about the own country. They do use the term Deep-State on occasion, but if you watch their programing enough this is obviously their use of the term to refer to things that control political actions from the background like large corporations and lobbyist. However it is done so rarely I don't consider their channel to be conspiracy based, but thought I should point it out due to what Onyia said at the start. Oh and the founder of the media group that runs the channel usually likes to open with some dead-pan humor I always find funny... so yeah... again for me it was humor that drew me in and made me feel better each day.

[Kathadon]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Guess I can try my best at this, because really for me I don't have cable so is whatever I run on my X-box in the background is what I get. While I don't know the background of many of my favorite channels... I will stick to what I like and basic details.

1. Tim Pool/ Timcast- This is the one I usually go to first, because the subjects they talk about on the podcast vary enough to provide me with entertainment and the news. Yeah he has a lot of right-leaning guest on, but he has had a few left leaning guest on to talk with as well.

2. Joe Rogen Experience- I watched a lot more of his podcast until he went over to Spotify, but the information I get from him has always been really good. Plus he always fact checks right there on the show right in the middle of interviews. So it has always been a fun watch.

3. The Quartering/ Midwestly- This is a much smaller channel hosted by a guy named Jeremy and when compared to the others, and covers entertainment news/ daily event news. The host slant at being right-leaning is obvious, but he does call out the right when they do stupid stuff too including Trump, but this is just less common. During the    Trump admiration and election he was all for the guy, but I would say afterward he points out all the promises broken to people who voted for him. His channel was one of the first news style ones I started following seriously and it is his entertainment style of being just a relatable dude that gives his opinions on stuff that has kept me around more than anything.

4. TFI Global- This channel, though nationalistic towards its home country in its slant, does at least a good enough job of providing news about subjects aka what is going on in Eastern countries with the China situation in a way that keeps me up to date. Yet hopeful at the same time that the US isn't the only country that is going to handle China's shit. Yeah I know weird reason to watch a channel, but hey... you guys wanted to know XD. I admit they do spend too much time these days hating on Biden, but I think that context is one based on worry about the own country. They do use the term Deep-State on occasion, but if you watch their programing enough this is obviously their use of the term to refer to things that control political actions from the background like large corporations and lobbyist. However it is done so rarely I don't consider their channel to be conspiracy based, but thought I should point it out due to what Onyia said at the start. Oh and the founder of the media group that runs the channel usually likes to open with some dead-pan humor I always find funny... so yeah... again for me it was humor that drew me in and made me feel better each day.

Feel free to disregard this, but I noticed all your news sources are aggregates that give their opinion on news stories with a center right to heavy right leaning bias. Or Joe Rogan. With a heavy emphasis on the culture war topics.

This actually is not a healthy news diet. You have no primary sources so you are being influenced entirely by opinion. Also I believe Tim Pool has even said that folks should watch left leaning voices too.

If you are interested in politics and news, especially if you wish to discuss them, spread out your news consumption more. Watch some left leaning You Tubers and Twitch streamers if for no other reason so you can understand and form your own arguments against theirs'.

Contra Points is a good choice for this. She makes excellent arguments, but is often in on the culture war topics.

Riley Grace Roshong is another excellent choice as she prefers well researched topics.

Again so is Kyle Kulinski/Secular Talk. If you start watching no other source start with Kyle to help balance your current news diet.

[Andol]

Feel free to disregard this, but I noticed all your news sources are aggregates that give their opinion on news stories with a center right to heavy right leaning bias. Or Joe Rogan. With a heavy emphasis on the culture war topics.

This actually is not a healthy news diet. You have no primary sources so you are being influenced entirely by opinion. Also I believe Tim Pool has even said that folks should watch left leaning voices too.

If you are interested in politics and news, especially if you wish to discuss them, spread out your news consumption more. Watch some left leaning You Tubers and Twitch streamers if for no other reason so you can understand and form your own arguments against theirs'.

Contra Points is a good choice for this. She makes excellent arguments, but is often in on the culture war topics.

Riley Grace Roshong is another excellent choice as she prefers well researched topics.

Again so is Kyle Kulinski/Secular Talk. If you start watching no other source start with Kyle to help balance your current news diet.

Thanks you for the information, I was hoping someone would provide some left-leaning of this nature to balance out my news diet. I do want to know what you mean by primary sources? I ask because depending on what it is... I might be able to provide context into the lack of them in my news consumption.

[Kathadon]

Primary sources like the AP (Associated Press), The Hill, Politico, CNN, NBC news, The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, etc.,etc.

Basically all the sites that Tim and Kyle aggregate from. They all have You Tube channels too.

[Andol]

Primary sources like the AP (Associated Press), The Hill, Politico, CNN, NBC news, The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, etc.,etc.

Basically all the sites that Tim and Kyle aggregate from. They all have You Tube channels too.

Ah yeah the main reason you don't see any of those in my news diet is the lack of... well... enjoyment I get out it along with the news. Plus it is easier to listen to someone talk about the news story while I am doing other things than read it. I just prefer those who aggregate because at least they know how to keep my attention and come across as relatable as people giving their opinions. I will make sure to listen to your recommendations though so I don't get an echo chamber effect.

[Lilias]

Primary sources like the AP (Associated Press), The Hill, Politico, CNN, NBC news, The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, etc.,etc.

The only way the Daily Fail is a primary source is because they manufacture their own news if it's been a slow day. Not worth the paper it's printed on, or the energy that powers the site.

[Iniquitous]

First and foremost - I get a daily email from 1440 (https://join1440.com/)with the news (no opinions, no bias).  Once I am settled at work I will scroll through NBC, CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera when it is slow.  I stay away from anything right-leaning/far-right & I would rather shot myself in the face than listen to Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro.

[Fox Lokison]

Ah yeah the main reason you don't see any of those in my news diet is the lack of... well... enjoyment I get out it along with the news. Plus it is easier to listen to someone talk about the news story while I am doing other things than read it. I just prefer those who aggregate because at least they know how to keep my attention and come across as relatable as people giving their opinions. I will make sure to listen to your recommendations though so I don't get an echo chamber effect.

And that's how they convince you that what they're saying is true, and that the conspiracy and fearmongering they push is accurate. Because they're easy and enjoyable to listen to. It becomes like entertainment, and even forms a parasocial bond. They're deliberately capitalizing on that. They're also deliberately trying to be relatable. It's not necessarily a sinister thing, but it's literally their job. If you don't keep coming back, if you're not entertained, if you're not hooked, they don't make money.

Manufactured authenticity is a big problem with opinion sources. They're not giving you the facts, but their opinions of them, sold as factual. The more you buy into this, and believe that they're doing a genuine breakdown of the news, the more you get into their slant. You aren't aware of what's being left out, misquoted, or misrepresented. You're not fact-checking the statements, or making sure they have their information correct. And because of that, you're believing whatever they say. Which.... is the entire goal of that kind of thing.

Definitely should include more primary sources.



This chart is consistently updated, and fairly open with their methods and reasons for rankings. You can find it here

[Oniya]

I'm a little surprised that Prager U is so high on the vertical axis.

Of the near-top tier, I find Vox fairly easy reading.  NPR has podcasts and streaming in most areas (and of course, radio).  The Atlantic is also well-written, but I think you get a certain number of free articles per month.

[Andol]

And that's how they convince you that what they're saying is true, and that the conspiracy and fearmongering they push is accurate. Because they're easy and enjoyable to listen to. It becomes like entertainment, and even forms a parasocial bond. They're deliberately capitalizing on that. They're also deliberately trying to be relatable. It's not necessarily a sinister thing, but it's literally their job. If you don't keep coming back, if you're not entertained, if you're not hooked, they don't make money.

Manufactured authenticity is a big problem with opinion sources. They're not giving you the facts, but their opinions of them, sold as factual. The more you buy into this, and believe that they're doing a genuine breakdown of the news, the more you get into their slant. You aren't aware of what's being left out, misquoted, or misrepresented. You're not fact-checking the statements, or making sure they have their information correct. And because of that, you're believing whatever they say. Which.... is the entire goal of that kind of thing.

Definitely should include more primary sources.



This chart is consistently updated, and fairly open with their methods and reasons for rankings. You can find it here

I believe I made it clear my reasons, and there are others I wish not to get into. Beyond saying I don't need the negativity of the news without something to make it a bit lighter... I don't enjoy it. Also while I have time to add in new channels that I can listen to while I paint and do my hobbies... since that is just stuff in the background. I have made it clear that is the point.

Also I have to question the purpose of calling out my one sided-diet of the news, when others have admitted to one that is similar, but strictly left leaning. I mean isn't any kind of lack of both sides in ones news diet bad. It makes me call into question the underlying motivation. Don't worry I didn't take it as an attack... was simply curious. :D

[Fox Lokison]

I believe I made it clear my reasons, and there are others I wish not to get into. Beyond saying I don't need the negativity of the news without something to make it a bit lighter... I don't enjoy it. Also while I have time to add in new channels that I can listen to while I paint and do my hobbies... since that is just stuff in the background. I have made it clear that is the point.

Also I have to question the purpose of calling out my one sided-diet of the news, when others have admitted to one that is similar, but strictly left leaning. I mean isn't any kind of lack of both sides in ones news diet bad. It makes me call into question the underlying motivation. Don't worry I didn't take it as an attack... was simply curious. :D

There is a difference between a lean, and an opinion. A lean is Fox News predominantly covering Republican issues, conservative issues, and Christian issues, while neglecting to bring up other things, or limiting their mentions. An opinion is your thought on what is reported.

You cited not primary sources, but opinion authors/speakers. I can give you my opinion on the news right now. I might include some really important facts. But in the end, I'm not a primary source. It's my opinion. The critique, Andol, is of the source, not of you. I was outlining how listening to just those things can feed a false narrative. If you just listened to left wing opinion speakers, you'd have the same issue. Opinions. Not which side they're on, the reliability of what they're saying.

[Oniya]

This is one of the reasons that I created this thread.  If one person is looking to widen their horizons with other news sources, then there might be more.  The chart you provided is quite useful with regards to bias and reliability (I'm not at all surprised at the inverted 'V' shape it has), and can help all of us recognize which of our sources lean which way.

[Kathadon]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I believe I made it clear my reasons, and there are others I wish not to get into. Beyond saying I don't need the negativity of the news without something to make it a bit lighter... I don't enjoy it. Also while I have time to add in new channels that I can listen to while I paint and do my hobbies... since that is just stuff in the background. I have made it clear that is the point.

Also I have to question the purpose of calling out my one sided-diet of the news, when others have admitted to one that is similar, but strictly left leaning. I mean isn't any kind of lack of both sides in ones news diet bad. It makes me call into question the underlying motivation. Don't worry I didn't take it as an attack... was simply curious. :D

To take Fox's idea and give it an anti-left bias, Andol, think about all the poor soccer moms that bought into Rachael Maddow's Russia reporting during Trump. These women, who felt that the election had radicalized them; even if they had not moved to the left politically, their liberal sympathies and "news" consumption had swelled into a suddenly central part of their identity.

"they convince you that what they're saying is true, and that the conspiracy and fearmongering they push is accurate."

Rachael Maddow did that. She had millions believing that Russia could turn off the power in winter to the North West U.S. for instance.

So yes not having primary sources means you are placing a great deal of trust in those aggregating news to you. Even if on average you agree with them 99% of the time it is still best to do your own reading and/or compare view points with those that disagree with your primary source if it is opinion based. It can suck if you dislike reading news, but I firmly believe that is part of the responsibility of a citizen to be informed.

Because I can tell you something that is 100% true, but leave out several details that could completely alter the overall narrative. This is often done with gun violence for instance.


Also if you are using these as entertainment while doing other things, and do not mind debate formats, try Destiny on You Tube. His ability to take issues and debate them very well has had me reconsidering view points in the past. I do not always agree with him in the end, but I find his logic and thought process informative.

[Andol]

I will make sure to add Destiny to my watch list then as I did a few others you suggested Kathadon to try and at least hear the left-leaning opinion people.

I liked that thing you put up Fox and will try to at least read some of the sources that fall at the top of the pyramid. Would rather not stress to much about their being a hard basis when I simply trying to get a primary source. XD The news can be stressful enough sometimes without the overlap of someone to be entertaining. Which is probably my second big reason I normally use people like that, which as you guys have stated... probably isn't the best thing for ever bit of information I get.

[Fox Lokison]

This is one of the reasons that I created this thread.  If one person is looking to widen their horizons with other news sources, then there might be more.  The chart you provided is quite useful with regards to bias and reliability (I'm not at all surprised at the inverted 'V' shape it has), and can help all of us recognize which of our sources lean which way.

A notable thing to me, was how many of the right wing sources dip into false information. It's something I'd suspected, given my studies into the alt right, the slow radicalization of america, rise of authoritarianism, etc, but to see it so starkly laid out between them... little glaring. It's especially difficult when you realize many of those lower right news sources have attacked the upper right ones as lukewarm or moderate or even traitors. Further pushing things towards that far right viewpoint.

[Andol]

A notable thing to me, was how many of the right wing sources dip into false information. It's something I'd suspected, given my studies into the alt right, the slow radicalization of america, rise of authoritarianism, etc, but to see it so starkly laid out between them... little glaring. It's especially difficult when you realize many of those lower right news sources have attacked the upper right ones as lukewarm or moderate or even traitors. Further pushing things towards that far right viewpoint.

Same for me though in a different light, it showed how much of the US's big media channels skew to the left and even quiet extreme in some cases. Sort of a 'look at this graph' kind of thing XD

[Oniya]

A notable thing to me, was how many of the right wing sources dip into false information. It's something I'd suspected, given my studies into the alt right, the slow radicalization of america, rise of authoritarianism, etc, but to see it so starkly laid out between them... little glaring. It's especially difficult when you realize many of those lower right news sources have attacked the upper right ones as lukewarm or moderate or even traitors. Further pushing things towards that far right viewpoint.

There does seem to be a dense cluster around mid-to-upper yellow for the left, while the right seems to trail fairly evenly through from the yellows into the reds, but I'm talking about the general correlation between 'absolute extremity' (distance from center) and 'reliability'  For example, the Palmer Report and Wonkette have about the same reliability as OAN and Newsmax.  It's harder to tell with the logo-sized data-markers, but that looks like a tight R² value there.

[Annaamarth]

Kathadon mentioned a lot of news sources that I follow - with a heavy grain of salt.  Al Jazeera might (or might not) be the mouthpiece of the Saudi royal family, but at least it's a view from outside the Western-and-especially-American echo chamber.  BBC, AP, Reuters, Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, South China Times.  Sometimes I'll source news from Germany, Poland, Sweden, Japan, India.

For news 'entertainment' and comedy and op-eds, I like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and especially a few youtubers.

I personally find that reading the slant - or even propaganda - from different sources can sometimes help me get good data, as long as I'm mindful of the grey fallacy.

@Andol-  If you don't enjoy primary news - and that's understandable - you might want to try Beau of the Fifth Column.  He's a libertarian-bordering-anarchist with some highly anti-authoritarian perspectives with a deep background on political violence and military culture - he used to be a PMC contractor in active situations.

He does a lot of daily content that is short videos that might provide a different opinion-slant than Joe Rogan etc.  Here's an old, fairly random example from OCT2019 when US forces pulled out of northern Syria and let Turkish forces do their thing - old news, in short, if you want something with older context to look at with a degree of hindsight.

For something more current, here's his ... somewhat playful response to Tucker Carlson claiming to be monitored by the NSA to pressure him off the air that had me absolutely rolling with laughter.

[Saria]

This is one of the reasons that I created this thread.  If one person is looking to widen their horizons with other news sources, then there might be more.  The chart you provided is quite useful with regards to bias and reliability (I'm not at all surprised at the inverted 'V' shape it has), and can help all of us recognize which of our sources lean which way.

But do take the results with a grain of salt, because there is one major flaw with the methodology: they only rate what the source actually reports.

A large part of an information source’s bias is actually hidden. It’s not in what they say… it’s in what they don’t say. It’s not just the notes that make up the melody; it’s the spaces between the notes.

What that means is that a source can be wildly biased, but hide it by simply not reporting anything that contradicts its viewpoint. For example, the BBC will bang on for days about a boatload of migrants (implicitly triggering feelings of xenophobia and the need to “tighten up the borders”), but won’t do a single story—or will do maybe one on a slow news day, in passing—about a report that shows how much immigrants have contributed to the country. They headline market trends and corporate mergers no matter how mundane and trivial, but don’t do regular stories about mutual aid networks or other co-ops.

That is the problem with all mainstream media. They all prefer to tell stories that placate right-leaning, or at least conservative beliefs; virtually none of them dare challenge the status quo. All of them dedicate large chunks of their time to business and money news; none of them focus on community organisation of any form (except when something terrible happens, of course). They all prefer to report short-term, high-impact events (“if it bleeds, it leads”); none of them bother to give regular time to long-running, systemic problems (which is why people like John Oliver fill a badly-needed gap). The Ad fortes methodology doesn’t take into account what a source chooses not to report… and that is a critical flaw.

There are other tricks to hide your bias, of course. The classic tactic all those outlets at the top of the “V” use is false balance: you can make even extremely biased reporting look neutral by giving equal time to “both sides”… even when both sides don’t really have equal weight. The most famous example is climate change reporting, which numerous comedians have parodied. But it happens all the time in much more subtle ways. American media is particularly egregious; they routine put batshit insane Republicans next to legit academics on the same panel. The Ad fortes methodology is also vulnerable to those tricks.

All corporate media leans rightward. And, yes, that includes public media like the BBC and CBC; those are corporations, too, and the source of their funding is government which is usually beholden to corporate interests as well. (With state media, it really depends on the state.) The horizontal scale on that chart is itself skewed.

It should be obvious just looking at the chart, too. For example, it’s a little absurd to believe that The New York Times—the paper that basically single-handedly “justified” the Iraq war, that gives platforms to the likes of Bari Weiss, David Brooks, and Ross Douthat, that does soft, humanising articles about “the Nazi next door”—leans left. Seriously, find me even one leftist who thinks The New York Times is even remotely warm to their side. The very idea is ridiculous.

[Lilias]

How much corporate influence exists in media can be seen in the amount and kind of advertising they host. (In the case of the BBC, that is zero.)

Tortoise Media is also worth checking out. They are based in and focused on the UK, but more than their content, it's their 'slow news' attitude that intrigues me. A lot of it is by subscription, but the free daily Sensemaker is pure brilliance.

[Humble Scribe]

Mainly Twitter if I'm honest.
Main news feeds I follow are: the BBC, The Guardian, Channel 4 News, The Economist, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Private Eye, New Scientist, NASA, the Metropolitan Police and a few journalists like Nick Davies, Carol Cadwallader, Jonathan Freedland, Fleet Street Fox, John Sweeney, Lindsey Hilsum, Michael Crick, as well as sundry commodities journalists for professional reasons. Welcome to my liberal media bubble!
(Also lots of games, history and comedy feeds, but obviously they're not relevant to this).

If I'm going out looking for information my start points will usually by the BBC or Guardian websites, or Google's News tab filtered by date.

[TheGlyphstone]

Having gotten this thread started, I probably should participate. My news bubble is fairly limited, largely because I overwhelmingly prefer text-based articles and primary sources over videos or any kind. I read far faster than most people talk, so I can absorb information easier through text. I also find written text, if properly cited, to be less likely to mislead me. An Opinion or Analysis article from an online newspaper is required to be labeled as such, for instance, but you have no way of knowing whether a YouTube video is presenting straight facts or colored commentary.

That said, I tend to get my news from AP, the BBC, and whatever paywall-free site links people throw up here. My tablet gives me free Washington Post updates, but I mostly end up using the headlines there as a guide to go looking for less partisan viewpoints. I also enjoy FiveThirtyEight's statistically-driven analysis, and my only regular source for video content is Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

It's definitely a diet with a lefty lean, but I've found it difficult to get well-written text from right sources that doesnt devolve into op-ed. RealClearPolitics was thought to be 538's opposite number but its articles were all resourced from far-right shill sites without any original content I could find. If anyone knows a good source for article content that's largely fact based and conservative-leaning in perspective, I'd be quite interested.

[Oniya]

That pretty much sums up my news experience, Glyph.  If a headline catches my eye, but it's pay-walled, I'll do a Google on any names I can make out, or the key nouns/verbs in the headline and URL.

[Lilias]

Try running the article url through Outline.com first. (If you use Firefox, there's an extension for it.) It doesn't work with all sources, far from it, but they're working on expanding it.

[Annaamarth]

...If anyone knows a good source for article content that's largely fact based and conservative-leaning in perspective, I'd be quite interested.

I've had some success going directly to some of the conservative think-tanks for studies.

Did you know that a large number of conservative think-tanks found the Trumpwall to be a terrible idea?  I'd cite my source, but I looked it up like ... three  years ago.

Still, I also find reading the op-eds can be useful - understanding the narrative is, itself, a tool.

[Saria]

How much corporate influence exists in media can be seen in the amount and kind of advertising they host. (In the case of the BBC, that is zero.)

If you truly believe the BBC is under “zero” corporate influence, I have a bridge to sell you.

It should be obvious even without any investigation—and without insiders openly admitting it—that no major news source is ever going to be free from corporate influence. In order to be as big as the BBC is, and to get the kind of access and resources they need to do their journalism, they need massive infrastructure. And where are they going to get it from? Even if it’s the government or otherwise “pure” (non-corporate-tainted) money paying for it, it still needs to be bought from corporations. And if your entire news network could be pulled off the air because, say, Microsoft withdraws permission to use their networking software… then yeah, you’re going to think twice before going too hard on Microsoft in your reporting.

And there are plenty of other ways corporate money can influence the reporting of even ostensibly “incorruptable” outlets. Even indirect pressure can be powerful. If, say, the BBC started hammering too hard on powerful corporations, the corporations could use their money to create anti-BBC campaigns, and turn the tide of public opinion against the broadcaster. I mean, that’s not even a hypothetical; that happens all the damn time.

Here is a truism: Anything powerful enough to influence public opinion will be targeted by corporations for their own use and benefit. That’s as true for the BBC and its journalists and executives as it is for Instagram and its influencers. And if there is any clear target to attack, co-opt, supplant, or manipulate, they will succeed in controlling it, at least to some degree.

I've had some success going directly to some of the conservative think-tanks for studies.

If you’re getting your information from think tanks, you’ve pretty much given up on reality. Think tanks—especially partisan political think tanks, no matter their leaning—do not exist to report facts, they exist to manufacture them.

The only possible use for think tanks—and this is a big stretch—is after their “facts” have been vetted by legitimate journalists. If and only if real journalists from across the spectrum have checked the think tank’s information and found it generally credible, only then could you use them as a source… and only for the specific information that has been vetted. But to use them as primary sources is absurd.



I haven’t answered the topic question directly because I think it’s fundamentally misguided. Basing your view of reality on which sources you “trust” is a dangerous game. It’s ultimately just the appeal to authority fallacy, only somewhat disguised by providing “evidence” that this or that authority really is okay to trust. A “good” authority is still an authority, and an appeal to them is still an appeal to authority.

I don’t even bother to keep track of which sources I get my information from, most of the time, because it doesn’t matter. (Though, obviously, if I know a source routinely flat-out lies, I will avoid them, though sometimes they still slip into my stream when I’m not paying attention.) Throughout the day/week/month, facts, information, and news stories flood into my awareness from all over, and I deliberately try to vary the kinds of sources I get information from. Generally, if I hear something once, I take it with a grain of salt (and investigate if I really care about it)… but if I keep hearing the same facts over and over again, I start to trust that it’s factual… unless I see plausible claims to the contrary, at which point, if I care, I investigate.

That’s basically it; that’s all there is to it. Doesn’t matter if the information is coming in from CNN, The New York Times, Fox*, or random Twitter users, the same methodology applies.

* (Okay, well, not Fox, for the fact that they routinely lie. That’s another issue with that Ad fontes chart: they conflate propagandizing and lying. Just because something is propaganda doesn’t mean it’s untrue. While an outlet like Alternet is wildly biased, and all about opinionizing and straight-up propaganda, it never (at least so far as I’m aware; feel free to prove me wrong) outright lies or fabricates information. I don’t go to Alternet for news… but when they report news, I don’t distrust it out of hand… I just filter out the opinions and spin, and take only the facts. On the other side, an outlet like Breitbart is well-known for routinely making shit up. Like Fox, they regularly leave out key facts that change the entire story (in pieces they’re pretending are “news”; I don’t care if their opinion pieces are one-sided), engage in shenanigans like “doctoring” images, and generally fudge the truth. I don’t go to either Alternet or Fox for news, but if news ends up in my awareness from either source, I do not (dis)trust them equally.)

(Random Twitter users, by the way, are often an excellent source of information, used properly. You have to filter out the trolls and bots, but that’s usually not hard, because their behaviour makes them pretty easy to spot. You’re left with people claiming facts, and possibly people saying those facts are not true, but those who have the truth are usually eager to back it up with evidence. Those who don’t… just get mad and spout talking points. This applies to Twitter users, YouTube vloggers… any source, really… but platforms that allow a lot of interaction and direct responses (like Twitter and YouTube) are very good at letting both sides directly face off with their evidence, if any.)

There are a few key things to make this work, though:

• 
  You need to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion. And, frankly, you probably can’t. Seriously, try taking the test before reading the article. See how you do.
  
• 
  You need to be somewhat savvy of the tricks dishonest “news” sources use… and the traps that even honest sources sometimes fall into. Because the best measure of a story’s bullshittery is usually within the story itself… it’s not who the source is. What does “sources say” tell you about the veracity of a piece. Or, more technically, if it’s a piece about a government scandal, if the sources are anonymous “government insiders”, what does that tell you about the nature of the story? (Hint: it doesn’t suggest the story is false… but it does give you information about the motivations of the sources for getting this story—and specifically, this side of the story—published.
  

These are not skills you are born with, you need to study to learn them, and you need to train yourself to be able to apply them reliably, and in real time. I think a basic school curriculum these days should include media criticism. Kids should be coming out of high school with these tools and skills… but they’re not.

I think the best way to learn these skills, as an adult, is to make sure your media diet includes a huge dose of media criticism. A good Canadian example is an outlet called Canadaland; they don’t really report news, they report on the news. They dissect the big news stories of the past week or whatever, and dig in to what the journalists did right or wrong. They also dig into “the business” and expose where money is flowing, and where collusion or conflict of interest might be an issue. Full disclosure: they do lean left (especially by American standards, because it is a Canadian outlet), but they are very clear about where the facts end and their opinions begin, and they are very upfront about potential conflicts.

To be clear, I am not saying you should listen to Canadaland or you should “trust” Canadaland or that Canadaland is a good source or anything like that. (Honestly, I doubt US listeners will get much out of Canadaland, because it’s very Canada-focused.) I’m saying you should find something like Canadaland—something that explains, dissects, and critiques the media itself—and use that as a learning tool to build up the skills you need to properly critique all media you consume.

Once you know how to properly consume media, worrying out picking and choosing sources becomes a non-issue.

[Annaamarth]

If you’re getting your information from think tanks, you’ve pretty much given up on reality. Think tanks—especially partisan political think tanks, no matter their leaning—do not exist to report facts, they exist to manufacture them.

The only possible use for think tanks—and this is a big stretch—is after their “facts” have been vetted by legitimate journalists. If and only if real journalists from across the spectrum have checked the think tank’s information and found it generally credible, only then could you use them as a source… and only for the specific information that has been vetted. But to use them as primary sources is absurd.

Uhm.  This is a bit of a thread necro, but ...

It may be worth noting the sources I cited prior to that post about conservative think-tanks.  Again - I refer to those in order to understand the narrative.  Some of those think-tanks will actually provide information of value, even knowing that it's biased.

However, using think-tanks of any stripe as a primary, solitary source would, in fact, lead to an absolute failure of objective understanding - your criticism is understandable, just not necessarily applicable in my case, in my opinion.

For ease of reference, please find my first post in this thread quoted below.

Kathadon mentioned a lot of news sources that I follow - with a heavy grain of salt.  Al Jazeera might (or might not) be the mouthpiece of the Saudi royal family, but at least it's a view from outside the Western-and-especially-American echo chamber.  BBC, AP, Reuters, Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, South China Times.  Sometimes I'll source news from Germany, Poland, Sweden, Japan, India.

For news 'entertainment' and comedy and op-eds, I like John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and especially a few youtubers.

I personally find that reading the slant - or even propaganda - from different sources can sometimes help me get good data, as long as I'm mindful of the grey fallacy.

@Andol-  If you don't enjoy primary news - and that's understandable - you might want to try Beau of the Fifth Column.  He's a libertarian-bordering-anarchist with some highly anti-authoritarian perspectives with a deep background on political violence and military culture - he used to be a PMC contractor in active situations.

He does a lot of daily content that is short videos that might provide a different opinion-slant than Joe Rogan etc.  Here's an old, fairly random example from OCT2019 when US forces pulled out of northern Syria and let Turkish forces do their thing - old news, in short, if you want something with older context to look at with a degree of hindsight.

For something more current, here's his ... somewhat playful response to Tucker Carlson claiming to be monitored by the NSA to pressure him off the air that had me absolutely rolling with laughter.