Is there any news worth reading anymore?

[glazbagun]

I'd like this conversation to remain neutral and focused on the quality of journalism. I am aware that occasionally even the Sun or Mirror will spring a scandal that is in the public interest to report. But...

But as guy who has followed politics, the news, global warfare, local perv networks, council overspend, climate change, spaceflight... whatever today's Great Game is, I don't think I've ever until now got to the point that it's just not worth it. Every news agency seems to have an agenda. Every news article seems completely devoid of enough facts to form a balanced opinion, and more to the point seems blatantly written in such a way as to make it impossible.

I would love to believe that being a well informed member of society with a vote every other year matters, but I am increasingly thinking that the Jeremy Kyle generation actually have the right idea and it's all a load of bks to sell clicks/papers, we should all just eat/drink/be merry.

Is there ANYTHING worth reading out there with regularity any more?

I don't care if it's left or right. Anything written from a point of genuine objectivity and concern regarding regular news is welcome.

At the moment my list has been reduced to:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/
The occasional post on the blog site waitbutwhy, when the writer tries to dig deep and answer a single question:
http://waitbutwhy.com/

The register, which has some writers who at least seem technology literate and are able to comment on issues without seeming to be reading from single word flashcards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/

The BBC and traditional news articles seem hopeless these days. Have you found anything out there that seems to bear reading?

It's really getting to the point, personally, where I think this dude has it right. And he writes for the Guardian, so I can't let him win.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-...

Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 1st August 00:49

[rxtx]

The Register is an IT news site written by people that do know about IT, which is why they "seem technology literate"

[Funk]

glazbagun said:

It's really getting to the point, personally, where I think this dude has it right. And he writes for the Guardian, so I can't let him win.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-...

I despise the Guardian and its journalists but have to concede that he is actually on the money with that one.

I used to read The Telegraph online but a while back something changed and it's gone horrendously tabloid-y. Nothing of real substance or interest. I think last time I looked they had Graham Norton as an agony aunt. The standards of journalism slipped enormously and their pieces are littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Then they want people to pay for it!

The things I find I enjoy most are odd gems on niche sites which really make you think and add an interesting angle to consider. I don't bother with news sites much - if there's anything significant happening anywhere it's on PH pretty quickly anyway.

[Previous]

Regarding the Jeremy Kyle generation comment in the OP post, Ive often wondered the same.

If there is any hope, it lies in the proles

[Blib]

I came to the exact same conclusion that Dobelli makes almost 9 years ago now. I rarely read newspapers, I certainly don't watch the television news. Nor do I listen to much radio news either.

I'm powerless over all of it. So, there's no point in me becoming aerated over any of it. Life is too short.

I feel far better for it too.

[Derek Smith]

glazbagun said:

Is there ANYTHING worth reading out there with regularity any more?

Anyone who reads the Eye will know many of the reasons for the deterioration of the newspapers. It is sad but the great days of the first -gate seem to have gone forever.

Historically, most have had a certain political bias but I can remember when the majority of this was kept for the opinion pages. The news was reported and then commented on. Now, though, all have political bias as their raison d'être. Most seem to feed the prejudices of their readers. We get statements such as: I despise the Guardian. Yet it has broken scandals, changing certain aspects of life in this country.

The Times is now used a weapon to support Sky TV. An outrageously admitted contract to support a political party as long as the owner is allowed to buy lots of newspapers (originally) and the various parties attack Sky's biggest competitor, the BBC. It does seem as if that is its only function. Victoria Coren once said that despite all that he'd brought to a once great newspaper, she was glad that Murdoch had taken it over because he 'saved' it.

With newspapers having a close, in the case of Murdoch's, very close, relationship to the sitting government, a certain protection is afforded to them. We have little idea of what is going on.

The Eye, the only paper whose main purpose is investigative journalism, breaks scandals and they are ignored. We have corrupt councilors who, even after being exposed and removed from post, often with a handsome pay-off for their corrupt, or at best inept, performance, are then rehired by another council.

And no one seems to care. So what's the point in reading all about it?

I read various newspapers, at least one a day, and end up trying to work out what is really happening.

The civil law stops much of newspaper ability to report. Berstein and Woodwood would not receive any prizes nowadays as editors would refuse to publish.

We have access to a variety of views via the internet, but again, most of it seems to be posted for political purposes. I remember one journalist on QT saying that we should not trust what is on the internet just as if we can trust what is written in the papers.

I love the Eye but it is not as if its editor has no political bias, and possibly an agenda.

I read both the Spectator and the New Statesman, but even I admit I won't get balanced reporting by getting both ends. I just get different views. I am more likely to read a paper, magazine or website if it is well written, so there's a bias right away.

I find TV news enough for me. ITN is very good, and I know something about how it is put together. It is underfunded. BBC news is very good as well. It is, possibly, over-funded. My wife watches Sky News and, frustratingly, believes statements that Holmes makes because he is nice.

YouTube and social media is a source of information about current events. This has been used for propaganda, with the creation of dreadfully acted 'live' video, but that begs the question as to how much is well acted, so slips through my 'net'.

I've got to the stage where I am considering not reading a newspaper at all. A lifetime's habit being dumped. I am beginning to despise them all. I'll just accept that I will never know anything that's going on, not really.

Given that there is some sort of vote about the EU coming up, I thought I would do a bit of my own research regarding positives and negatives. It is all but impossible. All that is available is bias. The same statistics are used by each side to prove their point. 'Facts' are stated, repeated and used as a basis for argument but when you look for any evidence of the original statement, you find there is none.

It seems strange that in an age where we have information overload, we can depend on nothing. So why bother with the papers? One could say, perhaps, that their bias is apparent. However, that doesn't mean it has no effect on one. I was in advertising for years, creating display ads, and the one thing that it taught me was that I too was affected by them. We are all susceptible. We are at greatest risk when we think we are different to the herd so 'know things'.

I like history. I read a fair bit of it. I watch TV history programmes. One thing that has been revealed to me is that there are no facts, just opinions formed by bias or the need to get noticed. Early 2014 there was a review of half a dozen books, authored by the distinguished, on the first world war. There were contradictions in all of them, some quite fundamental. All the authors want to do is sell books or, perhaps, reinforce their position in their particular university. I have accepted, after overwhelming evidence, that I will never know what happened in the past. History is nothing more than interpretation or bias.

I have now come to realise that this is true for us now. We have no idea what is going on. There is just opinion.

[MrCarPark]

Oh Dearism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok

"It's like living in the mind of a depressed hippy."


Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UstNBrmJFc

Edited by MrCarPark on Saturday 1st August 08:30

[Derek Smith]

MrCarPark said:

Oh Dearism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok

"It's like living in the mind of a depressed hippy."

I went to a lecture, with video, by a chap who drove a lorry to refugee camps late on in the Biafran war. The convoy used a tortuous route and the pictures of wild Africa were stunning. He showed them for too short a time and most of us were concentrating on the screen so as not to miss any. I remember a still of the camp they made, in the middle of nowhere, and the night sky was startling.

Then, seemingly straight from the scrub, they turned into the camp. People gasped. It was shocking.

That was years ago, 1970 or so, and I can still see that first scene.

What the bit does highlight is, of course, that the despised hippy point of view, that politicians are corrupt, is now, apparently, accepted wisdom.

One for the hippies.

[Martin4x4]

The root issue here is that you have miss-interpreted the actual purpose of the News media as informing the public.

The real purpose is to make money, headlines are the marketing material not the product.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 1st August 15:29

[MrBrightSi]

I like Vice-news, as it's focused on the entire world and seem to get journalists into situations where most news organisations won't or dont want to go.

The news in the UK has disappeared up it's own arse though.

Richard Littlejohn, that's all i'll say.

MrCarPark said:

Oh Dearism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok

"It's like living in the mind of a depressed hippy."


Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UstNBrmJFc

Edited by MrCarPark on Saturday 1st August 08:30

Spot on post, glad someone remembers Curtis and Brooker.

[Funk]

Derek Smith said:

Most seem to feed the prejudices of their readers. We get statements such as: I despise the Guardian. Yet it has broken scandals, changing certain aspects of life in this country.

It's because of the extremely left-leaning and smug 'holier than thou' eco-agenda that I can't stand The Guardian. Like the BBC, it has a clear agenda and bias woven deep into its fabric. The Telegraph isn't much better now from a right-leaning tabloid perspective, moving into the same ground as the Mail.

Completely agree about the opinion being woven into the story rather than unbiased facts followed by an opinion piece. I also agree about finding it hard to find decent info about the EU vote and balanced reporting on the pros and cons of staying of going.

It's why I've broadly given up reading the news.

[greygoose]

drivetrain said:

Stick with the The Mash and you won't go far wrong.

Very true.

[Foppo]

I wish we could walk away from the left and right wing argument it is boring.

Some on the right have good points and vice versa.

I often listen to discussion programs on you tube in a few languages away from the mainstream news.

[Snozzwangler]

I read the Sunday times and the FT, as they seen to be reasonably factual.

TV news is garbage, full of 'analysis' and 'opinion', usually dumbed down so Darren and Chardonnay can understand it.

[Cheese Mechanic]

I've been looking around for a news portal worth subscribing too, but having a hard time. Currently of the opinion that the FT is all that seems worth bothering with.

The DT has gone down hill big time , The Times seems to lack direction , not much at all .

Having said that, I use Reuters a lot, Aljazeera (albeit very lefty) France 24 , and numerous other organs worldwide. Thing is though, they are all free, so why bother subscribing to a site?

[Otispunkmeyer]

One of the worst things about todays news outlets (mostly the smaller and perhaps niche websites I am talking about here, like those who deal with tech news and rumours or sports) is total wholesale lifting of other peoples reports. I was searching yesterday for something about that Aussie girl who fluffed her 1m spring board at the world champs. I wanted to see what the Aus/NZ press were making of it. I found 4 articles, all of them basically the same, including exactly the same phrases and sometimes who paragraphs.

Its just lazy. Ctrl+C, Crtl+V and go on google image search for an unflattering image. Job Jobbed.

[Negative Creep]

Otispunkmeyer said:

One of the worst things about todays news outlets (mostly the smaller and perhaps niche websites I am talking about here, like those who deal with tech news and rumours or sports) is total wholesale lifting of other peoples reports. I was searching yesterday for something about that Aussie girl who fluffed her 1m spring board at the world champs. I wanted to see what the Aus/NZ press were making of it. I found 4 articles, all of them basically the same, including exactly the same phrases and sometimes who paragraphs.

Its just lazy. Ctrl+C, Crtl+V and go on google image search for an unflattering image. Job Jobbed.

Or just browsing Twitter and repeating what a few people say as a "mass outrage". Not just talking about the tabloids either

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/ma...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760...

[Luke Warm]

Otispunkmeyer said:

One of the worst things about todays news outlets (mostly the smaller and perhaps niche websites I am talking about here, like those who deal with tech news and rumours or sports) is total wholesale lifting of other peoples reports. I was searching yesterday for something about that Aussie girl who fluffed her 1m spring board at the world champs. I wanted to see what the Aus/NZ press were making of it. I found 4 articles, all of them basically the same, including exactly the same phrases and sometimes who paragraphs.

Its just lazy. Ctrl+C, Crtl+V and go on google image search for an unflattering image. Job Jobbed.

Everybody wanted free news and this is the result - crap.

If we start actually paying for it again then it might improve a little bit.

[Derek Smith]

Luke Warm said:

Everybody wanted free news and this is the result - crap.

If we start actually paying for it again then it might improve a little bit.

The newspapers were on the way out well before the internet came about. I think the speed of decline has increased as a result of the availability of 24-hour news. But only just a bit.

Newspapers were old technology even in the days of Amiga 500s. They didn't report news, they just repeated what we had already seen on TV. The only thing that has kept them going is their political importance, although this is more imagined than real I think. The only reason the opinion of the newspapers is influential is because MPs tell themselves it is. I don't want to bring in the T word here, but the only reason Murdoch is important is that MPs think of his newspapers as an edge.

Free access to information is something that is under threat, as has been mentioned earlier on in this thread. MPs see exposed their corrupt manipulation of the trust in them, where they milk the expenses system for all it is worth, and much more. And the first thing that happens is that an enquiry suggest more political control.

May has already threatened to limit the BBC's freedom of reportage, without an OK by the government. What have we to fear in that?

The papers used to be independent of the government to a degree, and every now and again we get still get a revelation or two attacking the establishment, but with the newspapers owners being part of it, these are a bit muted. But even that affronts the MPs. How long has it taken them not to discover who was abusing children?

The internet has largely fulfilled its promise to give free interchange of ideas and thoughts for the rest of us, we have also seen the freedom eroded. We have the great and the good, and the corrupt and those of 'peculiar habits' protected by laws restricting search engines from revealing history. And there are attempts to limit still further the right to easily found information.

The protection that journalists enjoyed, limited though it was, is not available to those merely running a website, as if it was, in some way, different.

The irony is that will access to more information that the population has ever had before, the governments are trying to ensure that it doesn't last for long.

I'm sorry the papers have, to a great extent, passed the usefulness. I used to work just off Fleet Street, and there was a sort of jungle drums system of knowing when something special was to be revealed. I have parked outside the distribution centres on occasion, in a small crowd, to pay a NATSOPA the full price of the paper in order for him to put my coins in his pocket. Then to discuss the headlines with other night workers.

[CypSIdders]

You only have to look at the people who own, run and edit the press, with a couple of exceptions, they are all scoundrels, for want of a better word!
The Murdochs, Barclay brothers, Desmond, are all horrible, human beings, egging us on in the race to the bottom!