Is there any news worth reading anymore?
Discussion
The Economist is ok as a weekly digest.
Otherwise i read BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Al Jazeera and CNN and figure the truth is possibly an average of the content. Though the Guardian's investigative journalism is pretty good and generally apolitical (and I'm not a massive fan of their overall style).
Otherwise i read BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Al Jazeera and CNN and figure the truth is possibly an average of the content. Though the Guardian's investigative journalism is pretty good and generally apolitical (and I'm not a massive fan of their overall style).
No.
I think the notion of unbiased news is a misleading one. It's all biased, always has been and always will be. You couldn't really report anything without some subjective judgement creeping in.
I agree with the article above and with Taleb, who he quotes. Best to avoid the ongoing tittle tattle of news and look in greater depth at those things which are most relevant to me, while also having a very wide view to trends and patterns.
I think the notion of unbiased news is a misleading one. It's all biased, always has been and always will be. You couldn't really report anything without some subjective judgement creeping in.
I agree with the article above and with Taleb, who he quotes. Best to avoid the ongoing tittle tattle of news and look in greater depth at those things which are most relevant to me, while also having a very wide view to trends and patterns.
I avoid mainstream news like the plague , what drives me potty is when they're "covering" a major/complex story and they interview a random village idiot about how they "felt" when they heard xxx or worse still canvas their half baked opinion as to "what should be done"
I watch newsnight even though Ian Katz as editor has moved his Guardian view of the world straight onto the screen.
Papers are freebie Times from waitrose (this is PH...) and subscribed WSJ , private eye, spectator. Private Eye does take bizarre stances over stuff I happen to know about first hand so I'm reading it with a scepticism growing by the year.
The Spectator is great for reading on the throne.
But yes OP you are generally bang on
I watch newsnight even though Ian Katz as editor has moved his Guardian view of the world straight onto the screen.
Papers are freebie Times from waitrose (this is PH...) and subscribed WSJ , private eye, spectator. Private Eye does take bizarre stances over stuff I happen to know about first hand so I'm reading it with a scepticism growing by the year.
The Spectator is great for reading on the throne.
But yes OP you are generally bang on
I avoid mainstream news like the plague , what drives me potty is when they're "covering" a major/complex story and they interview a random village idiot about how they "felt" when they heard xxx or worse still canvas their half baked opinion as to "what should be done"
I watch newsnight even though Ian Katz as editor has moved his Guardian view of the world straight onto the screen.
Papers are freebie Times from waitrose (this is PH...) and subscribed WSJ , private eye, spectator. Private Eye does take bizarre stances over stuff I happen to know about first hand so I'm reading it with a scepticism growing by the year.
The Spectator is great for reading on the throne.
But yes OP you are generally bang on
I watch newsnight even though Ian Katz as editor has moved his Guardian view of the world straight onto the screen.
Papers are freebie Times from waitrose (this is PH...) and subscribed WSJ , private eye, spectator. Private Eye does take bizarre stances over stuff I happen to know about first hand so I'm reading it with a scepticism growing by the year.
The Spectator is great for reading on the throne.
But yes OP you are generally bang on
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.
It wouldn't. Which news site are you going to pay for?If we start actually paying for it again then it might improve a little bit.
I'll bet silly money it's not the news site that tells you that immigration isn't a problem, that speed limits are saving lives, or that man made climate change is real. (Or if you agree with those statements, sub in ones you disagree with).
If you paid for news you didn't want to hear, which is a separate category from bad news, it might improve things. But no one's ever done that.
If anything, clickbait headlines are far better than print at drawing in people with opposing viewpoints. That you can see all the crap, instead of just the crap you don't think is crap, is not necessarily bad even if you end up thinking there's more crap around.
The vast majority of news outlets have a bias in some way. The exception was Reuters though I understand this is changing. A lot depends on the type of story you want to read though.
The best tactic is to read stories across different outlets and remain open-minded rather than using the outlet to dictate or validate your opinion. So where some will thunder about 'swarms' of economic migrants coming over here drinking our beer etc, others will look at why someone tried to cling onto the bottom of a lorry, or what drove them to pay ££££ to escape Syria. Neither is 'wrong' or 'right', it's just approaching a story from different angles.
Also look out for publications churning press releases - you can tell because they will use nearly identical wording and it's usually around stuff like 'in 2014, more people died in London from air pollution than the previous five years put together' or 'TfL say road safety has improved since traffic light changes'.
It's easy to blame journalists for what you see as a decline in quality of news reporting. But the rise of free online news has meant that a lot of traditional news outlets are struggling and they focus online on the big hitting stories in order to get page views to pay for advertising to keep going. It's readers who drive demand for specific stories - so if 200m people click and share an article about Kim Kardashian's arse and only 50K click and share a story about council tenants being thrown out on the street so luxury flats can be built, it's pretty easy to see where the money is.
The best tactic is to read stories across different outlets and remain open-minded rather than using the outlet to dictate or validate your opinion. So where some will thunder about 'swarms' of economic migrants coming over here drinking our beer etc, others will look at why someone tried to cling onto the bottom of a lorry, or what drove them to pay ££££ to escape Syria. Neither is 'wrong' or 'right', it's just approaching a story from different angles.
Also look out for publications churning press releases - you can tell because they will use nearly identical wording and it's usually around stuff like 'in 2014, more people died in London from air pollution than the previous five years put together' or 'TfL say road safety has improved since traffic light changes'.
It's easy to blame journalists for what you see as a decline in quality of news reporting. But the rise of free online news has meant that a lot of traditional news outlets are struggling and they focus online on the big hitting stories in order to get page views to pay for advertising to keep going. It's readers who drive demand for specific stories - so if 200m people click and share an article about Kim Kardashian's arse and only 50K click and share a story about council tenants being thrown out on the street so luxury flats can be built, it's pretty easy to see where the money is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff