Where Do You Get Your News?

[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.