From time to time we have discussions about good places to get news.    With the events in Missouri and the Middle East, I have been trying to find something thoughtful to read, without too much click-bait and pop-up, and with some depth.


I know that news organizations like others, need to make money.  My question isn't about how they can make a living, but about how I can obtain good, reasonably accurate and thoughtful  news with a minimum of annoyance.  I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for it, and I don't mind some bias, if bias can be acknowledged and dealt with.


What I do mind is multiple speed-bumps in the way of popups, annoying click-bait that leads to equally shallow reports, and lists that give no depth at all but again are nothing more than click-bait.  I have popup blockers on my lap-top, but haven't  figured them out for the i-pad, which I use more.


Lately I've cone back to Christian Science Monitor, and subscribed.  Despite the religion, and one with an anti-science basis at that, their reporting seems pretty balanced, with a little depth, and minimal distractions.  I am subscribing again to them.  For a trial-run.


I looked into Al Jazeera.  I have a queazy feeling using them, because I'm not crazy about potential Muslim bias, but they do seem to have more depth than most US and Western sources.


Slate - too annoying and "hip", for me.  For a while they had a thing about "contrarian" content, to the point of giving anti-gay, Christianist junk-"researcher" Mark Regneris a forum, with their commentator William  Saletan giving his hipster Catholic points of view without stating such, and I soured on Slate.


Time - Seems really shallow these days


Newsweeek - ditto, and has been bought by what seems to be a christianist group, without acknowledging same. - I check frequently, but the stories are fractured, probably to increase clicks onto the site, and fairly shallow.  Still, I would pay for an option that lets me watch some of the stories without ads that seem to run longer than the video content.


The Economist - seems pretty good.  I know there is a corporate bias, but there is some depth.  Pretty expensive for the amount of content, though.


USA Today - I hate the format.  Shallow.


Google News - useful in some ways.  It's REALLY amazing to see how many so-called news sources are just aggregators.  Go through one after another, and the story is identical, and it's hard to find the original source.  Google News is sometimes good to pick up on the breaking stories.   But there is no filter for what's real and what is poorly reported, what's fraud, what's just trending but useless.


Any suggestions?  There are no newspapers on this list.  International Herald Tribune?  NY Times? - seems like too much for me, and I've read criticism about sloppy reporting recently.  The Onion?


I can't really watch TV, not enough time in my day, I work too long, and most of it seems like garbage, so I don't subscribe to any TV services.



Views: 255

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Christians hear stories from the Old Testament, which glorifies Israel.  And a lot of Jewish people are pro-Israel.  So there's likely to be a pro-Israel bias in countries with a lot of Christian and Jewish people.  Like the USA. 

I just realized recently that the "sacred" Old Testament had caused a halo effect on my thoughts about Israel and Jewish people. 

The same here.

Chris it sounds like your news sources are as bad as ours.

They are! The UK and Belgian news is better. We know from other sources lots of things happen in the world, but the Dutch news most of the time tries to distract us with accidents, songfestivals, sports and other non-news. I often feel it's a policy to keep us calm and interested in trivia while the things we should care about are taken from us.

Here in the US we certainly get our share of celebrity non-news, things that nobody would care about if they happened to an ordinary, unknown person.

Grinning Cat, I agree, but had to say that I don't give a fuzzy rat's patooty about celebrity gossip either.

I've been complaining about the sad state of network television news since the 1990's when I wrote a complaint letter to my local ABC7 affiliate here in Chicago.  I exclaimed how i was looking for substance in news reporting but was just receiving fluff from giddy news anchor persons.  I received a few replies but nothing satisfactory.  I haven't watched TV news in years.  It's a total waste of time.  Remember, these are the people who are reporting on Jesus on grilled cheese and Mother Mary seen in a water mark leaking from a highway overpass.    

I agree with Pat & Loren and I watch and listen on the internet:


Reuters News.

NPR, especially

Morning Edition.

All Things Considered.

I would add:

The Real News.

Public Radio International.

for political news i like TalkingPointsMemo.  Huffington Post is a good aggregator of news.  Washington Post is ok but you only get 10 free articles per month.  i particularly like the New Republic for commentary.  Salon has lots of good commentary as well.  Vox is a new site hosted by Ezra Klein and is considered "explanatory journalism".  

I should check on vox.  explanatory sounds good.

Maybe the "zap cookies" bookmarklet in "Bookmarklets for Zapping Annoyances" would help you read more of the Washington Post.

[edit] You could also try opening articles in "Private Browsing" or "Incognito Mode".



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.  

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service