What is a good news source for mostly neutral news?

[Volardelis]

I'd like to find some Australian news sources that aren't left wing liberal shitrags. Hell, anything that's not libtard sjw infested horse shit would be magical.


[Infracted]

Skynews? That is our version of fox news.

I generally look at abc or sbs in Australia. Sometimes I even read news.com, which is run by the real self-titled billionaire tyrant.

[Allybeboba]

This is actually a very good thread.
As with all "news", one should always try and read between the lines. Much of modern news is mostly fear mongering.

[Djuntas]

Phillip Defranco

[Casterbridge]

I tend to use BBC and NPR mainly for me.

A few others mentioned here aren't bad though. As usual trying to read the same story with a couple of view points is usually good regardless.

And yeah Al Jazeera is usually good for more info on the actual war stuff going on, though as mentioned earlier they do occasionally let some bias come through on certain topics, but that's true of most I guess.

[THE Bigzoman]

I've grown to like the skeptic community on YouTube. Try the Rubin report

[unbound]

With the recent events it is becoming harder and harder to find news that has a quality level higher then buzzfeed. This problem persists on both sides from fox news to other networks jumping on things like the "fascism forever club".

What is a reliable source of news theses days? So far I make do with a mismatch of liveleaks and wikileaks but is there any major publication left that hasn't degraded into little more then a gossip rag?

Well, one of the most important things to understand is that while no major news source is perfect, most of the mainstream are actually pretty good at being neutral. The GOP has been waging a war against neutral news sources to keep from answering their pointed questions / issues. This has made it sound like Washington Post and New York Times are some extreme liberal newspapers when, if anything, they are slightly right leaning publications. The goal is to have everyone distrust every news source so that people will never be able to understand what is going on.

While this picture isn't perfect, it is far better than most attempts to explain where the news sources stand...and my complaints wouldn't change them largely from where they are, but just small tweaks (e.g. The Wall Street Journal IMHO is closer to being where The Hill is than depicted in the picture...still solid work, but more partisan than shown).



What I do like about the image is the use of two dimensions to separate basic news from much more in-depth reads. If you really want to understand what is going on, don't just look at the left / right axis, but spend your time on the upper half of the chart.

[Independent voter]

I'll second Al Jazeera. I appreciate that they don't turn away from "ugly" stories, but actively work to shine a light on them, no matter who they piss off in the process.

Al Jazeera is great as long as the story doesn't involve Israel. Or the US. Or Russia, or the EU or Iraq or Syria, or Iran or China.

[Allatar]

The Sunday Sport is probably the best, though it has some knockers. It has a very wide coverage of news stories that other media miss.

Feel the wisdom. Knocker news is best news.

[NineSpine]

If your media literacy is so low that you aren't capable of judging and fact checking news sources on your own, I think a more back to basics approach is needed, not a list of sources. I recommend reading Carl Sagans The Demon haunted World to start.

[PC2]

If your media literacy is so low that you aren't capable of judging and fact checking news sources on your own, I think a more back to basics approach is needed, not a list of sources. I recommend reading Carl Sagans The Demon haunted World to start.

That book isn't going to help with the news and subjective political biases. For the latest science available free online I would go straight to the daily Arxiv submissions.

[primalmatter]

If your media literacy is so low that you aren't capable of judging and fact checking news sources on your own, I think a more back to basics approach is needed, not a list of sources. I recommend reading Carl Sagans The Demon haunted World to start.

I just don't always want to research for myself if something is true or not... call me lazy.

[NineSpine]

I just don't always want to research for myself if something is true or not... call me lazy.

If you can't be bothered to learn how to tell fact from fiction, you'd be equally served ignoring the news as you would reading it. With that level of profound and unmitigated laziness and entitlement, you will never be able to form coherent opinions anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

That book isn't going to help with the news and subjective political biases. For the latest science available free online I would go straight to the daily Arxiv submissions.

you are really only demonstrating my point by prioritizing political bias over whether things are true or false.

[Unhinged]

Skynews? That is our version of fox news.

I generally look at abc or sbs in Australia. Sometimes I even read news.com, which is run by the real self-titled billionaire tyrant.

news.com.au is just a shit fest of shocking journalism, but it is good for a laugh at click bait headlines and their hilarious stand on anything to do with piracy.

ABC/SBS are the inly two news i watch (this is maybe once or twice a month)

[Putin-Chan]

I think infowars and huffington post are the best journalism around.

- - - Updated - - -

Phillip Defranco

Philly D's pretty good.

[Ave07]

I think infowars and huffington post are the best journalism around.

- - - Updated - - -



Philly D's pretty good.

I agree.

[PC2]

you are really only demonstrating my point by prioritizing political bias over whether things are true or false.

I wasn't prioritizing either with that comment, the goal is to separate all the subjective news sources from the latest science and data. Giving journalists curation power over science does not make sense.

[Serpha]

All you need is Saloon and Buzzfeed

[Dezerte]

www.truthism.com

[Chiquihuite]

AJ are a bit 'we dont like the jews' and 'lets not talk too much about the gulf states'. But they do have some of the best war journos. While most western news outlets just wing it with some guy who gets to lebanon and writes from dubious sources about the frontlines, AJ have some serious balls out correspondents who really do go to the fighting.

Yeah, that is one area where they tend to show a slant. But to be fair, I think it's less 'we don't like the Jews' and more 'we don't like the Israeli government'. I've never understood why it's OK to criticize Obama or Trump or Merkel or Abe, but not Netanyahu. Governments do bad things sometimes, and calling them out on it doesn't automatically constitute an attack on the people they happen to govern.

[Release]

I wasn't prioritizing either with that comment, the goal is to separate all the subjective news sources from the latest science and data. Giving journalists curation power over science does not make sense.

NASA does this and a lot of Americans and members of your government still don't believe in climate change so it really makes little difference.