Looking for News Sources

Simply put, I'm looking for a new news source. I stay away from Fox News simply because the people they hire disgust me and I've caught them distorting things so badly that it was to the point of lying. As a general rule, I refuse to watch news channels of any sort, and stick to getting my news online. I've been reading MSNBC because of its accessibility but I feel it only supports a Democrat viewpoint and as I've researched the news organizations with the least amount of bias, MSNBC seemed to be much more biased then I had originally thought. Popular consensus on the Internet seems to think that CNN and BBC are the least biased, but I want the opinions of the people on here. I would prefer if there was a website where people could also comment on the news articles themselves. As another general rule, I never take news articles at face value and I always read the comments that people make to get different opinions and to sort out what's being distorted and what facts are left out.

So my questions are:
. Is online news generally less biased then what's shown on TV? (Even from the same news organization?)
. Which online news source is the least biased in your opinion (and preferably why you believe so) that also allows the accessibility for international and U.S. politics and contains the option to leave and read comments.

You do realize that the comments people post on new stories tend to be the worst humanity has to offer, right? Having insane people throw feces at a story (or at Obama, or Romney, or black people, regardless of what the story is about) is no evidence of that story being good or bad. I also wouldn't worry too much about bias. One can be biased and still present novel information or a compelling argument (there is a point where bias turns to propaganda, at which point the source becomes useless). Credible online sources do tend to be better than TV news for the simple reason that they take several pages to present information/an argument instead of taking 30 seconds.

For general news, I usually stick to BBC and NY Times. CNN.com and the Washington Post aren't too terrible either. If you want specialized news, you're better off going to sources that specialize in that kind of news (e.g. WSJ and the Economist for financial news, British papers for British news, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You do realize that the comments people post on new stories tend to be the worst humanity has to offer, right?

---

You do realize we basically do that here too? :p

Quote:

---

Having insane people throw feces at a story (or at Obama, or Romney, or black people, regardless of what the story is about) is no evidence of that story being good or bad. I also wouldn't worry too much about bias. One can be biased and still present novel information or a compelling argument (there is a point where bias turns to propaganda, at which point the source becomes useless). Credible online sources do tend to be better than TV news for the simple reason that they take several pages to present information/an argument instead of taking 30 seconds.

For general news, I usually stick to BBC and NY Times. CNN.com and the Washington Post aren't too terrible either. If you want specialized news, you're better off going to sources that specialize in that kind of news (e.g. WSJ and the Economist for financial news, British papers for British news, etc.).

---

As long as you keep the bias of your source in mind, it's not a problem indeed. One of the better lessons learned about literature and sources in an otherwise useless class by a horrible teacher :p Propaganda is useful for some things, though (says a lot about the source, what they try to push), and about what the audience of the propaganda may believe to be true.

@Loki

Ok thank you for that. What I mean for comments however, is that I really look at and analyze what people are saying. I usually immediately disregard any person with bad grammar or anyone shouting about some Texas revolution or baseless assertion that Obama somehow is doing some communist thing but I've learned quite a bit just from reading the comments and realize how much an article will leave out just to preserve a viewpoint. I'm a bit concerned from what you've stated (for my own sake) because I want the full story so I can make a rational opinion on what I'm learning, but now I just don't know. I usually lean towards the comments that users make, where they justify their train of thought and usually provide facts to back up their opinion, but even now I don't know if I'm wearing blinders. Many of my political opinions have some basis in comedians I enjoy listening to (Bill Maher, Lewis Black, George Carlin, etc.) and even though I don't always agree with what they say, they're definitely against the Republican party (or at least the general face of it). I would like to pride myself in understanding rational politics, but I'm not quite sure I'm pursuing it in the best manner.

I'm a bit ranty, I know, but I've suddenly just become very concerned over whether I'm too liberally biased.

EDIT: Well now I guess this is addressed to everyone.

The worst of kat's ravings are better than half the comments that get posted on just about any news story that allows comments.

My friend has a tendency to read crazy sources to figure out what various fundies believe. But you know what? There are lots of crazies out there, and we have a finite amount of time on this planet. Don't worry about the nutjobs of the world are thinking. And you're right about the bias: keep in mind the slant of the story, but don't use that as a sole reason to dismiss what is being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knux897

@Loki

Ok thank you for that. What I mean for comments however, is that I really look at and analyze what people are saying. I usually immediately disregard any person with bad grammar or anyone shouting about some Texas revolution or baseless assertion that Obama somehow is doing some communist thing but I've learned quite a bit just from reading the comments and realize how much an article will leave out just to preserve a viewpoint. I'm a bit concerned from what you've stated (for my own sake) because I want the full story so I can make a rational opinion on what I'm learning, but now I just don't know. I usually lean towards the comments that users make, where they justify their train of thought and usually provide facts to back up their opinion, but even now I don't know if I'm wearing blinders. Many of my political opinions have some basis in comedians I enjoy listening to (Bill Maher, Lewis Black, George Carlin, etc.) and even though I don't always agree with what they say, they're definitely against the Republican party (or at least the general face of it). I would like to pride myself in understanding rational politics, but I'm not quite sure I'm pursuing it in the best manner.

I'm a bit ranty, I know, but I've suddenly just become very concerned over whether I'm too liberally biased.

---

Even comments that might seem informed on the surface are usually idiotic in one way or another. At least a writer has to get his article past an editor; no such luxury for those commenting on the stories. Just because someone can justify their comments (granted, that puts them above most people who can't even do that) doesn't mean their justification is valid. People like Maher make a living of saying things that are seemingly intelligent but that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. If you want actual news, stick to news sources. At least they're not looking to pull a fast one on you.

Indeed, well said. I'm an international studies major at my university (though I'm only taking gen ed. classes to knock out credits before I actually pursue the major) and I'm extremely interested in U.S. politics and foreign policy. I would one day like to be a driving political force based on what I consider to be politics based on rationality (I dismiss conservatism and liberalism when labeling things because it seems to me to be nothing more than a game to earn politicians votes) but I'm just exceedingly concerned that I don't become the exact thing I'm working to repress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knux897

Indeed, well said. I'm an international studies major at my university (though I'm only taking gen ed. classes to knock out credits before I actually pursue the major) and I'm extremely interested in U.S. politics and foreign policy. I would one day like to be a driving political force based on what I consider to be politics based on rationality (I dismiss conservatism and liberalism when labeling things because it seems to me to be nothing more than a game to earn politicians votes) but I'm just exceedingly concerned that I don't become the exact thing I'm working to repress.

---

I suggest reading the Economist, it has quite a lot of international politics, and US politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knux897

Indeed, well said. I'm an international studies major at my university (though I'm only taking gen ed. classes to knock out credits before I actually pursue the major) and I'm extremely interested in U.S. politics and foreign policy. I would one day like to be a driving political force based on what I consider to be politics based on rationality (I dismiss conservatism and liberalism when labeling things because it seems to me to be nothing more than a game to earn politicians votes) but I'm just exceedingly concerned that I don't become the exact thing I'm working to repress.

---

Don't forget that what people perceive themselves as matters even if those categories are far from objective or rational.

Anywho, I don't think you'll learn anything valuable from TV shows. Their only real purpose is entertainment. I'd suggest reading BBC, NY Times, and some stories from the Economist at a minimum. Beyond that, have a look at Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. The former is free and you should have access to the latter through your college.

A degree in international studies is probably not the best path toward political success by the way. :o Most politicians are either lawyers or former businessmen.

Generally the comments above are great. For a weekly read, the Economist is by far the best out there IMO. There are some niche publications that are better in a specific area, but for all-around coverage and writing, you can't beat the Economist. (Much of my blatherings on here are informed in part by their coverage.)

For daily 'what's going on' news, you can read anything. Google News has all of the headlines you'll need, but if you prefer a consistent style or editorial stances you can look to other sites. I've found the BBC's website is decent enough for a quick 'what's going on' look, though their coverage is not always very deep and is occasionally biased. I dumped CNN some years ago after their website became useless and largely unreadable.

For daily 'in depth' news, I'd say you should read online versions of the few decent broadsheets out there. In the US, that means the WSJ or NYTimes, though they are obviously both partisan. (I happen to disagree with Loki on the WPost; outside of a narrow subject matter, I find their coverage average at best.) In the UK, that means The Times and The Guardian (at least in my experience; I'm not a fan of the Telegraph).

TV is useless.

You may also want to throw in a local rag if you care about voting in municipal elections.

There have actually been occasions when I saw that a story broke on BBC (which, as you say, doesn't provide very in-depth coverage), saw absolutely nothing in the Times, but did see a story in the Washington Post. The Post also occasionally has very well-written investigative stories on domestic and international politics. Having said that, there isn't much to read in the paper on a day-to-day basis.

The Economist is great for keeping track of events in parts of the world that get short-changed by other papers (i.e. pretty much everywhere outside of the US, Britain, and the Middle East), but I'm not a big fan of its analysis (which is part of all the stories). It's usually pretty simplistic, written from the perspective of an informed journalist, not someone who's done any research on the topic. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the authors didn't consistently push the misguided analysis. The economic/finance stories tend to be better, but I'm not an expert on those areas; perhaps those who study the subjects would similarly feel the writers aren't very well informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There have actually been occasions when I saw that a story broke on BBC (which, as you say, doesn't provide very in-depth coverage), saw absolutely nothing in the Times, but did see a story in the Washington Post. The Post also occasionally has very well-written investigative stories on domestic and international politics. Having said that, there isn't much to read in the paper on a day-to-day basis.

---

Yeah, the WPost occasionally has good investigative pieces - the whole bit on the US intelligence apparatus a while back was a prime example. They're good on politics as well, but outside of that sphere they rapidly get mediocre IMO. I feel like most worthwhile WPost stories get linked to from elsewhere, so there's not much point in reading it regularly unless you're a junkie.

Quote:

---

The Economist is great for keeping track of events in parts of the world that get short-changed by other papers (i.e. pretty much everywhere outside of the US, Britain, and the Middle East), but I'm not a big fan of its analysis (which is part of all the stories). It's usually pretty simplistic, written from the perspective of an informed journalist, not someone who's done any research on the topic. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the authors didn't consistently push the misguided analysis. The economic/finance stories tend to be better, but I'm not an expert on those areas; perhaps those who study the subjects would similarly feel the writers aren't very well informed.

---

I also enjoy the Economist's coverage on, say, obscure elections in countries nobody cares much about. I get your critique about their analysis - the Economist has a very strong editorial line, and they push it pretty hard in all of their stories (though I'd hesitate to call them partisan). Sometimes it means they ignore nuance to make their case, and it can be frustrating, agreed. And yet it's still a good all-around weekly read... the stories are written in a punchy but not idiotic style (I'm looking at you, Time and Newsweek), they get pretty decent coverage of relevant and interesting issues, and while their editorial line isn't always right, it is always well-intentioned and passionate without the demagoguery you get at more partisan publications.

My biggest complaint with the Economist, actually, is that their stories at time get to be a bit repetitive. There's only so many times they can reiterate their editorial stance on the eurozone before it becomes a snooze, and the largely unchanging week-to-week reality makes for some redundant reading. Ditto on various other subjects - the before-and-after election articles for many countries often don't really add anything that wasn't said earlier. It's the pitfall of having a weekly publication - they want to cover all of the week's important news, but that means that it can get challenging to tell the same long-running story in a different way for the umpteenth time.

I'm not a big fan of well-intentioned pieces. As they say, the road to hell was paved with good intentions. I prefer to think of it as intellectually lazy. An intelligent person shouldn't be promoting something that they know can't work just because it's the right thing to do. The Economist does that far too often.

The Economist actually tries too hard to not be partisan. It uses any reason it can find to endorse/support political candidates who are in no way classically liberal in a misguided attempt to appear non-partisan. But I digress. :o

I prefer to think of it as not lazy but merely occasionally uninformed. ;)

As for your point about endorsement, I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the Economist endorses people just for show, and they're fairly consistent. When they deviate from what many people would have expected (as, for example, with their endorsement of Obama in 2008), they gave a decent set of reasons why, and they were hardly the only right-of-center outlet to give him an endorsement.

I do think they tend to be a bit pro-Tory in UK coverage (they make excuses for the Conservative party for some mis-steps that they wouldn't do for anyone else), but outside of that I've found their political coverage to be very refreshing after the morass of shit that is US political journalism.

For an organization that's meant to be incredibly right-wing economically, I can find no rational basis for them to endorse Obama over McCain, nor John Kerry over George W. Bush. You can say what ever you want about McCain and Bush, but they were not one of the 5-10 most left-wing politicians in their branch of the government. They also supported the borderline communist Ken Livingstone for mayor of London in 2004, and support just about any Latin American leader who makes economic reforms, even when their opponents would likely implement more robust reforms. Sure, they find ways to rationalize things, but those rationalizations are grossly inconsistent with their underlying classical liberalism philosophy.

The comments on stories from yahoo and CNN are what makes them so entertaining...

Now I'm curious - can anyone post the articles on why they endorsed, say, Obama and Kerry?

http://www.economist.com/node/3329802

They mostly ignore economic issues and then paint Kerry as a fiscal conservative. There is no freaking objective political ideology organization that had Kerry anything other than incredibly left-wing. :bored:

http://www.economist.com/node/125166...ry_id=12516666

The endorsement of Obama is no more coherent. Obama's left wing positions are entirely ignored. His lack of experience is mentioned but then downplayed. Apparently Obama is better at restoring America's self-confidence, which is clearly the most important criteria for a presidential candidate.

http://www.economist.com/node/2724986?story_id=2724986

They also endorsed the pseudo-Marxist Livingstone in 2004 because he implemented road pricing and saw crime rates go down (no mention of the fact that crime rates went down in just about every major city in the Western world during the same time period). More evidence of the Economist's trend of picking at some random policy or event and basing their editorial on that, while ignoring their own liberalism.

Only had time for Obama's - reads to me like a less of two evils choice they made.

Lesser of two evils based on which criteria? My point is that the criteria they use bears little relation to the ideology the Economist claims to promote.

They express hope (:p) that he would listen to his advisers, and that those are good, where as they also mention McCain shifted from what they do support to something they don't support.

So let's see, on the one hand, there's McCain, who used to be 90% liberal, but became 70% liberal. Then there's Obama, who's 10%. But he brings hope, which invalidates all other liberal criteria. I find it hard to respect a paper that refuses to put its neck on the line by supporting candidates that most closely support their ideology, not ones who happen to be popular. I'm not trying to suggest here that there weren't good reasons to vote for Obama. I'm saying very few of them reasons were consistent with liberalism.

"News" isn't what it used to be. In other words, it's no longer "Journalism". Doesn't matter if it's on 'free tv' or paid cable....'free' web sites or paid subscription access.

The reader and "news consumer" has tons of access....that doesn't come with any guarantee of quality or neutrality. Fox News alone proves that point. Few "news" cites present both sides of any issue. Even 'think tanks' are known to sway one way or another, with bias.

Just read everything you can. Make the decision to visit various "news" sites and click on their references, which often lead to other links, and follow the trail. If an article doesn't have references or hyperlinks for the writer or topic.....that's a clue it may not be very reliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So let's see, on the one hand, there's McCain, who used to be 90% liberal, but became 70% liberal.

---

Do Americans have some sort of voltmeters with "liberal" tacked onto the selection handle? And where exactly do you point the probes?