With all the BS and misinformation out there as well as network news being owned by "someone", where can one go to get truly trustworthy news that hasn't been spun through any filters? I trust some networks with a salt shaker more than others. I don't trust any news on the internet without a salt mine..
Thanks!
I get most of my news from NPR, BBC, or Washington Post. If it says Associated Press on it, it doesn't matter the source and is probably pretty accurate.
I got my first taste of disgust of the news media two decades ago when I started working for a lobbying/PR firm and my eyes were opened to the spin game. But what's happened to journalism the past five years or so is appalling. 
In reply to mtn :
Very interesting link. Thanks!
One thing I really like about NPR is that, if you listen often enough, you'll notice quite a few times where they will say "Yesterday, we reported XYZ. We have since learned that Z was incorrect, and the correct thing was A". I don't hear that or read that on many other outlets, yet somehow I doubt those other outlets are more accurate the first time around.
Primary sources are more available than ever. For virus updates, I go straight to the CDC website. For politics, I go directly to politician's Twitter feeds to see what they are saying. For the Australian bush fires, I looked up local Australian news networks with local reporters on the ground. For anything that cites a study or document, those documents are usually availble online. A primary source doesnt have to be "right". What matters to me is knowing exactly where the information comes from.
The problem with a lot of news media is if they don't tell you what you want to hear, then they can seem biased.
I also usually listen to NPR. The broadcasters generally try to keep their personal opinions out of the news. They don't always succeed, but at least they try. BBC News is similar. Both try to adhere to the principles I was taught back in journalism school: report the facts not "truth". Truth can change based on the facts known.
NPR , BBC and Deutsche Welle or DW.com which is a German public international broadcaster.
Also NHK which is Japans public TV / Radio
nderwater said:I got my first taste of disgust of the news media two decades ago when I started working for a lobbying/PR firm and my eyes were opened to the spin game. But what's happened to journalism the past five years or so is appalling.
Honestly, it's nothing new. The idea that journalism was once unbiased and pure is just nostalgia.
That said, I like Reuters, they seem to shoot pretty straight. But the best way to do it is look at a variety of sources and draw your own conclusions, because a completely unbiased source does not exist.
My default position is all of them are biased. I gather info from most sources and assume the actual truth is somewhere in the middle.
I feel like our CBC up here is in Canada pretty good, better than any of the focused news networks.
I'm not saying there isn't bias, but on the whole I'm still happy my tax dollars pay for them to exist.
This is going to sound completely opposite to anyone not familiar, but the Christian Science Monitor exists to be as unbiased as possible. I have known multiple government teachers that use it specifically for that reason. If you read up on the backstory, it makes sense. I have never ever met Christian Scientist, that I know of, but I know many people that read their newspaper.
Matthew
Agree that Reuters seems to be pretty neutral and reliable.
mtn said:One thing I really like about NPR is that, if you listen often enough, you'll notice quite a few times where they will say "Yesterday, we reported XYZ. We have since learned that Z was incorrect, and the correct thing was A". I don't hear that or read that on many other outlets, yet somehow I doubt those other outlets are more accurate the first time around.
While NPR might be the most sincere media outlet, still remember- the bills are paid by someone, and they still have a politic side. Ever notice none of their articles are Pro Guns, anti abortion, or any of that other political mess? They have a side, and all of this plays a role in how "evidence" is presented.
Toyman01 said:My default position is all of them are biased. I gather info from most sources and assume the actual truth is somewhere in the middle.
This. This is so what everyone should do.
_ said:mtn said:One thing I really like about NPR is that, if you listen often enough, you'll notice quite a few times where they will say "Yesterday, we reported XYZ. We have since learned that Z was incorrect, and the correct thing was A". I don't hear that or read that on many other outlets, yet somehow I doubt those other outlets are more accurate the first time around.
While NPR might be the most sincere media outlet, still remember- the bills are paid by someone, and they still have a politic side. Ever notice none of their articles are Pro Guns, anti abortion, or any of that other political mess? They have a side, and all of this plays a role in how "evidence" is presented.
You’re confusing their opinion pieces for their news pieces. Their news is legitimately neutral - as all actual news should be. They're reporting the facts as far as they know them.
BBC and NPR are my go-tos.
BBC can seem bland, but bland is what you need. BBC might report, "Yesterday in the U.S., president [insert name] signed a law that would ensure the rights to equal pay for [insert group of marginalized people]." That's it. They might follow up with "members of [opposing party] showed reluctance to vote for the bill in last week's session, but the proposal passed with a 58/42 margin." Meanwhile, CNN would report "Yesterday, the president signed into law a partisan bill that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Here to talk about it are three experts with dubious titles who will tell you why it's awful."
I don't want editorial commentary for 5 minutes. Report the news. What happened, when, what are the actual potential consequences, then SHUT UP AND MOVE ON.
For a good time, follow CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). They are not 100% impartial, but most of their impartiality is toward Canadian politics. What amazes me is how much I learn about the US when I'm in Canada in the summer. They don't have the need to sugar coat and bullE36 M3 US news stories, so you get the straight dope. They also tend to report more diverse things. Whereas here, you get COVID19, Trump, and election updates 24/7, up there they will report on all the stuff you miss here while ABC, CNN, and CNBC are too busy distracting you with editorial crap. One month of getting news from CBC and you won't know everything about the US, but you'll at least have your eyes opened to how much you don't know.
Al Jazeera is pretty good with some bias, but at least it's news that isn't from the US.
My radio in the truck pretty much stays put on my local public radio station. They will sometimes re-run a talk show later in the day, so instead of listening to the same show I sometimes click over to classic rock, but the week I spent not having a radio in my backup DD was torture not having NPR.
Another thing you'll hear on NPR (and sometimes ABC since they're owned by Disney) is something like "The law firm of [insert unpronounceable names here] has decided to represent [insert suspect here] in their upcoming embezzlement trial. For the record, the law firm of [unpronounceables] is a sponsor of WITF." They more or less recuse themselves... or at least say "yup, they gave us money, but that's not why we're reporting this. We just wanted you to know so you don't come back later and say we're biased." it's just all on the table.
Will said:Agree that Reuters seems to be pretty neutral and reliable.
And yet soooo limited in scope. Their biggest market is News Media outlets, so they cover what the networks want... which is what the networks THINK the public wants. That means most of what Reuters covers is politics, healthcare, and the stuff that makes us scared.
I've actually taken to reading and listening to media criticism sites and broadcasts. It's interesting to analyze the lens which media sources are viewing the facts through.
Maybe I just like them because I'm a massive cynic anyway.
What I will say is that it's nearly impossible to avoid a bias in reporting. It's impossible for there not to be because everyone's life experience is different and people who are drawn to journalism tend to skew in a specific direction.
Organizations sometimes go overboard with trying to appear impartial as well. For example what happened with Lewis Wallace after he wrote this. APM (Marketplace) hired him to report on communities he is part of, but insisted that he not be biased toward those communities, even off the clock. That's kind of an issue when what you're reporting on is your identity. Add to that the fact that codes of ethics are notoriously nebulous and you get his story.
Personally I prefer the AP and Reuters because they tend to lack analysis, which is what gets news organizations into trouble, but most of my news has come from ArsTechnica, NPR, and the local paper lately.
I also read through a wide swath of other outlets because some of them are very very good investigative journalists.
I'll be honest, I have been considering investing in/donating to Snopes. They have made it their mission (with seemingly great aplomb) to debunk the social media rumors that get tossed around like a hot potato. They just don't have the resources to research everything.
I would invest in a news outlet that puts as much research into finding the truth of a story as Snopes does debunking false stories already out there.
The0retical said:
Personally I prefer the AP and Reuters because they tend to lack analysis, which is what gets news organizations into trouble, but most of my news has come from ArsTechnica, NPR, and the local paper lately.
Agreed. Just the news. I just wish they were broader in what they reported.
I like that they might say "X people have died from the flu this year which is 24% less than last year at this time." CBS might take that root AP story and say "We've won the battle against the flu, and here's an expert on why you shouldn't get the shot." Grrr. Just report the facts and give me a factual comparison for perspective.
I pull out my little shortwave every now and then.
Stations like "Radio <insert nation>" are always full of propaganda, but the other views are interesting.
Sometimes you hear news about your country that is reported no where else.
Not exactly what you asked for, but related.
_ said:mtn said:One thing I really like about NPR is that, if you listen often enough, you'll notice quite a few times where they will say "Yesterday, we reported XYZ. We have since learned that Z was incorrect, and the correct thing was A". I don't hear that or read that on many other outlets, yet somehow I doubt those other outlets are more accurate the first time around.
While NPR might be the most sincere media outlet, still remember- the bills are paid by someone, and they still have a politic side. Ever notice none of their articles are Pro Guns, anti abortion, or any of that other political mess? They have a side, and all of this plays a role in how "evidence" is presented.
Yes. Their bills are paid directly by people with zero say in how the money is used. When Chick Fil A pulls their ad campaign from Fox because they have a sitcom with a gay couple, it influences Fox. When the head of [insert news network] takes direct money from [insert political figure] over a nice round of golf, they are influenced. NPR gets a heap of money from millions of donors, none of whom have any say in the media they present. The programming is based on listener/viewer feedback. Mr Rogers Neighborhood didn't stay on the air because someone who liked that programming donated a bunch of money and said "keep him around," it stayed on the air because the viewers saw value and provided adequate feedback to sustain it. Then PBS decided to allocate the funds from their donated assets to pay for the show.
In some situations, you CAN donate to benefit specific programs but not specific content. You might be able to say "here's $20k for Sesame Street," and PBS is required to spend it on Sesame Street... but they are not influenced to provide specific content on the show, nor are they required to continue the show. They have the right to refund the balance of your donation and cancel the show.
This happens weekly at our theater. We get donations, grants, and sponsorships. If a Priest donates $500 with no stipulations, we could use it to produce a porno and he would have no recourse. If, however, he says that it is designated for childrens' theater, it must be used for the kids' show... but he would have no say in which kids' show we chose.
We just offered to refund our sponsor a prorated portion of their sponsorship for the show we had to cancel last week. The difference is the laws concerning non-profits like us versus for-profit media. ION television can take a million-dollar bribe for showing content that aligns with the donor's political views. NPR can't, nor can the donor influence the actual media that their donation supports.
_ said:Toyman01 said:My default position is all of them are biased. I gather info from most sources and assume the actual truth is somewhere in the middle.
This. This is so what everyone should do.
This is how I do it to.
In reply to mtn :
Yes, and they don't HAVE to report what they don't want to. And if they broadcast something their viewers won't like, they don't have to do a long segment on it. They can reduce it to a few short words and move on. We all know what kind of people listen to NPR. NPR knew it before anyone else did. And thus, they cater to what keeps them relevant.
eidt: I would like to point out I'm not affiliated with EITHER political side. None of it has anything to do with me, which is why I do like I mentioned before. Watch a little of everything and see what's in the middle.
You'll need to log in to post.
