SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For on-line news, what sites do you avoid and which ones do you seek out as being trustworthy?
Thanks to my position as an editor on SoylentNews, I've had the privilege of viewing story submissions which have referenced a veritable plethora of different sources. It has been a privilege to serve you these past few years. My goal has been to provide stories that cover a diversity of areas but always with an attempt to provide level-headed background. I strive to avoid shrill in-your-face!!!!elevnty! diatribes. To invoke a common mis-quotation "Just the facts, ma'am." Full confession: I'm not above posting an occasional funny or feel-good story, either.
Over time, I've come to learn that some sources are more reputable than others. News outlets are comprised of people who have their own biases; some try to remain objective whereas others use their position to push an agenda.
For example, I've learned here that RT is a mouthpiece for the Russian government (A modern-day Pravda, if you will).
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), on the other hand, is funded primarily through a television license costing £147 per year per household. But, it has received a funding boost from government to expand its global reach.
Fox News has had complaints about its content and has had its share of controversies. But even some commonly-held beliefs about Fox News have proved exaggerated and not fully supported by the facts.
ScienceDaily, phys.org, CNET, Quora, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), ESA (European Space Agency), Spaceflight Now, weather.gov, and Hurricane Prediction Center are just some of the sites that I have found especially helpful.
So, I turn to the SoylentNews community:
- What biases have you found with MSM (main-stream media)?
- what 'news' sites do YOU avoid? Why?
- where do YOU find trustworthy, unbiased, fact-supported news?
Bonus question: What would you think of a news story on SoylentNews whose only supporting link is CNN? Fox News? Breitbart?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28 2018, @07:37PM (1 child)
I will read news from as many sources around the world as I can. I always thought American MSM sources produced softball material for domestic consumption, but international editions were a bit more informative. Witness the Newsweek cover from 12 years ago "Losing Afghanistan" everywhere in the world, but "My Life in Pictures by Annie Leibovitz" in the US. Of course US media knows that they cannot be rocking the social stasis in America...
I liked Canadian media, the stories are generally more highbrow, that country and its industries don't have a spot of the influencing power the US has, so there is not a high degree that they can drive the narrative by themselves. The regular snark against Americans can be funny too.
I used to really enjoy German media, they used to be quite rational with healthy skepticism to whoever was in power in Berlin or Washington, and generally took positions of promoting peace in the world. That changed sometime between 2005 and 2015. German MSM now generally promotes the same lines as the MSM in the US, i.e. vilifying Trump and Russia. Other space is occupied by invective against national leaders that don't support whatever policies the German government feels it is allowed to stand for: Orban is evil! The Polish government is evil! Putin is evil! Erdogan is evil! Assad is evil, we need to get rid of him!
I don't know when they last did an in depth investigation of the endless Merkel government, i.e. discovered something that would have endangered her rule. They did manage to do that several times during the Kohl years. Instead, they lament that people don't go vote anymore "because it won't change anything", but slander people who politically engage, disagreeing with unchecked immigration, decline of social services and safety as neo-Nazis. Often, I will ignore the articles themselves, and go directly to the comments, where (if permitted) one may still see good points among accusations of "Whataboutism!" and "Russian troll!".
I noticed the change in discourse in the early 2000s, when I met a Dutchman, who told me it was "Good that the US invaded Iraq, because Saddam Hussein was a bad man". I really just stared at him, that kind of simplistic reasoning was fit for an American, but alas it has become normal in European MSM reporting.
Where are the propaganda lines coming from? I have to guess the larger framing comes from the same interests as behind the US MSM, with the pro-interventionism wrt Syria and Ukraine and constant Trump and Russia-bashing.
There's Aljazeera and RT, which I'll read for different perspectives, but I am aware that those outlets may have an interest to drive the narrative the way their funders want. I'll consider looking at Times of India - the country is a major democracy which has kept out of the orbit of the US and its satellites.
Of course, there is our beloved SoylentNews, where we have a select community of good people give expert commentary :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28 2018, @10:30PM
Forgot to mention: the German MSM by 2015 was faking its reporting to push the pro-migrant narrative. At a train station in Hungary, a migrant who did not want to be processed in Hungary (wanting the better social benefits available in Germany) threw his wife and kids off the platform. Hungarian police then got the people off the tracks and arrested the man. This was reported by a major news organization as "Evil Hungarian police manhandle refugee!", with a video clipping of a policeman making the arrest.
Thank god for truth, a facebook commenter was able to provide video of the entire occurrence. Crickets when the news org was challenged to correct its story. If it had been their website, they would have just disabled comments.
It's not just that there is a bias, there is outright lying. Lügenpresse indeed.