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.
cnn.com - 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.
I watch Al Jazeera, BBC, France 24, PBS, and anything else that will seem to have the least bias in news reporting. I don't need a political view in the fact that people were killed. More and more today I'm finding that others do not speak the same language that I do. Nobody knows plain English anymore. News reporting on TV and also in print seems to be trying to get a message across to a certain crowd with a predetermined set of beliefs and values. I spot this quickly and it turns me off. Everything has a hidden political agenda and it appears the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. This is causing me to get very PO'ed at AARP for example.
I don't want to find a "pidgeon hole" that I belong in. What I want is balanced reporting and you can find this even on the Internet. You just have to look for it. If strapped for time us an Internet version of something in stead. I make jokes about The Christian Science Monster but they do have some balanced reporting.