Alternative sources for news and social media

[hopeallgoeswell]

Basically, I'm looking forward to hearing what others use for news and social media that is 1.) not cookie-cutter and 2.) doesn't censor differing viewpoints.  I got off of Facebook almost two years ago due to censorship and hopped over to MeWe, even though it's not as user-friendly or as populated.  FoxNews and CNN get a weekly perusal, but I have found them both lacking in properly-sourced/unbiased articles.  I've incorporated independent sites, like Full Measure, and podcasts with news commentary, like The Liberty Report and The Rubin Report, into the mix.  Usually the media is just a jumping off point for me to start researching the topic on my own.  Over the past few months, I have been staying away from YouTube due to the massive censoring of anything contradicting mainstream media.  BitChute is filling a small part of the YouTube void, but I would like other sources if they are out there.  I haven't ever used Twitter or Instagram, though if there are alternative sources out there, I might be inclined to try it out :).

[Ausmumof3]

Twitter censore but some people kind of set up a feeder account then redirect to other social media if people are interested in stuff that’s censored.  Of course many of those are just conspiracy theory rabbit holes.  For news I like to check and compare multiple sources, and will try to look for a source local to the country being reported on.  I like our abc here in Aus (abc.net.au), BBC, Reuters, but will also check Al Jazeera, Jerusalem post, south China morning post, even Russian times and Global times though with a pinch of salt.  I think in some ways the source is less important than knowing what the sources bias is so you can interpret through that lens.  So I will look at media fact check bias or Wikipedia for an unknown source to check what to look out for.  Or even ask here because there’s people with knowledge from so many different areas of the world with good critical thinking skills.  One area I don’t know where to check for is Africa so if anyone has any good recs for English language news from any of the African countries or even the continent in general I’m interested.

[ScoutTN]

WORLD magazine does excellent reporting. Christian. Good online or hard copy.

They have a 10 minute/5days a week student video like CNN's but with a different worldview.

[Frances]

The WSJ, outside of the opinion page, is generally considered to be very center. It’s my go to at work. There are actually sites that place various media sources (not social media) on a continuum by their bias. You could check out some of the center ones and see what appeals to you.
 

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

Because I prefer written news, especially longer in-depth articles, I also like the Longform site.

https://longform.org

Edited October 3, 2020 by Frances

[AmandaVT]

20 minutes ago, kand said:

I also like BBC, but also check AP News and Reuters for straightforward news without all the click baity stuff. I also subscribe to The Washington Post online and get daily briefings from the New York Times as well as the local paper from the nearest large city. 

You're my news twin - I read the above plus the Atlantic if they have something interesting. I like their deep dives.

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, kand said:

That’s really funny because I almost added to mine thatI also like to read some of the articles in the Atlantic, but then I decided not to bother. We truly are news twins! 😂 

Love the Atlantic!

[Corraleno]

Ditto: BBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, New Yorker. I also like Mother Jones for longform articles and investigative reporting.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Corraleno

[ktgrok]

I'm not a fan of WaPo, and I'm liberal, lol. But there headlines are SO sensational/biased, even when the articles are not. (and sometimes they are). They have a mix of really fantastic journalism and a bunch of click bait, in my opinion. 

BBC, NPR are my main news sources, with Atlantic for longer form stuff. 

As for social media, I don't use it for news, so the whole uproar over censorship doesn't really effect my use of it. I'm using it to connect with people I know, or to discuss say, decluttering. I assume any news I see there is fake. 

[lewelma]

I get a different viewpoint from Al Jazeera.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Love the Atlantic!

Me, too. Quite moderate, and some of the writers source things very rigorously. 

[Pen]

I find that pretty much everything has a viewpoint much like everyone has an accent.

I 0articularly go to a bunch of overseas sources for different views, most already mentioned by others above.  (BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Australian ABC, Canada and South American sources sometimes... The Guardian rather often since it isn’t paywalled.   Also when I can get it I like BBC radio. ...)

As people here know I have a particular liking for DrBeen videos on YouTube. (Particularly related to Covid19.)  They have been censored a lot.  I try to see them early before YouTube takes them down and have joined people requesting YouTube to put them back up. 

 

I use sources and listen to podcasts from a variety of perspectives and try to stay open to others. For example, someone here on WTM introduced me to Scott Adams, and a person I know Irl to introduced me to Victor Davis Hanson. Both are on the more conservative side, and I have come to very much appreciate Hanson as a historian and classics scholar as well. I have listened to Ralph Nader and others on the more progressive side .   I also listen to real people friends with a variety of perspectives.  I think regardless of side I appreciate intelligence and broad knowledge such as I have tended to find with Nader and in great abundance with Hanson.  Locally I tune into NPR or local stations which tend to be liberal. 

 

ETA: A book by Nader about how he grew up which described an atmosphere and actual location set up by his parents with open communication on many sides, issues and perspectives had a lot of influence on me to want to have something similar— in my reading and listening at least even if I haven’t managed it at my dinner table. 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Pen

[Pam in CT]

Welcome to WTM, Jake.

[HS Mom in NC]

AP News and Reuters for center news. I have left and right news sources and commentary I go to in addition so I'm not ignorant of the wide range of views in the society I live in.

[Shoeless]

Apnews.com and WSJ. Both are pretty center. I don't read the opinion pages. On WSJ, you can choose to read the articles in the same order as the print edition, this opting out of any algorithm they have. 

Honestly, my stress went waaaaaay down once I stuck to those 2 news sources. No alarming, anxiety producing headlines!

Every so often I check NYT, because I think the charts and graphs they publish are more readable than others, but that's all I get from there most days. 

[Negin]

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

On 10/2/2020 at 8:06 PM, hopeallgoeswell said:

Basically, I'm looking forward to hearing what others use for news and social media that is 1.) not cookie-cutter and 2.) doesn't censor differing viewpoints.  I got off of Facebook almost two years ago due to censorship and hopped over to MeWe, even though it's not as user-friendly or as populated.  FoxNews and CNN get a weekly perusal, but I have found them both lacking in properly-sourced/unbiased articles.  I've incorporated independent sites, like Full Measure, and podcasts with news commentary, like The Liberty Report and The Rubin Report, into the mix.  Usually the media is just a jumping off point for me to start researching the topic on my own.  Over the past few months, I have been staying away from YouTube due to the massive censoring of anything contradicting mainstream media.  BitChute is filling a small part of the YouTube void, but I would like other sources if they are out there.  I haven't ever used Twitter or Instagram, though if there are alternative sources out there, I might be inclined to try it out :).

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Melissa Louise]

I like some of what's in The Atlantic, and subscribe, but I wouldn't call it an alternative source of news. 

In terms of 'uncensored', OP, you might like Quillette, though it's opinion, not news. Publishes a range of views from the far left to ultra conservative. 

There's also some heterodox outlets like Persuasion, Arc Digital, The Signal...but again, mostly opinion. 

[Melissa Louise]

There's also The Critic. And Tortoise Media. 

[Roadrunner]

The Economist.  NPR

[Melissa Louise]

Two more. 

Reason. The Bulwark. 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

Apnews.com, Reuters. I peruse USAToday as well. No other news. *Nothing* on social media, esp YT.

I wish I had time for more in depth analysis (The Economist, Foreign Policy, etc), but that kind of time is still a ways off down the road.

[Ottakee]

15 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Allsides is my favorite. That's about it. 

I was going to suggest this.. .shows various viewpoints on the same topic

[Negin]

On 2/26/2021 at 9:19 PM, Dreamergal said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

I just realized that this is a slightly old thread, from October. Oh well. 

I read this the other day:

“It has grown terribly difficult to separate objective journalism from opinion journalism. Back in the days when evening news anchor Walter Cronkite was considered ‘the most trusted man in America,’ there was a well-defined separation between news and opinion. Today they have bled into each other. This exacerbates division and resentment. Whereas we have long understood that Fox News leans right and MSNBC leans left, the rest of the news networks still try to pass themselves off as objective nonpartisans. This frustrates conservatives the most, since networks like CNN still proclaim to be ‘just the facts’ or ‘news analysis,’ when in fact most hosts persistently engage in left-leaning opinion journalism. It is no wonder that trust in mass media has been edging lower and lower over the past twenty years, down to 41 percent in September 2019, according to Gallup.”

I agree with the gist here, but I wanted to say right-leaning (even far-right) sources also try to pass off as “fair and balanced” and factual. Therefore, I do not agree that this “frustrates conservatives the most.” The Epoch Times bills itself as “nonpartisan and dedicated to truthful reporting.” In reality, they are so far into La-La Land, they probably also have evidence the earth is flat. 

I do not identify as “conservative” anymore, but I find it quite frustrating to sort out what is the truth. I try to read broadly and remain sensitive to rhetorical persuasion (from either end), but I cannot become a professional news reader. I subscribe to The Economist, NYT and The Atlantic, and I get local news alerts from a mainstream local provider. I also listen to Bloomberg financial news, but that doesn’t spend a ton of time on politics, except as it affects financial reporting. I read some articles in The Epoch Times, because I like to see what “the others” are being told. That seems to be the best I can do for staying broadly read. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Quill

[J-rap]

I generally trust our state's two main newspapers, and I read both.  I browse NYT, NPR, and BBC.  I also like to talk with smart people I respect (from both sides!) and am currently trying to put together a list of journalists who appear balanced.  When I find ones that sometimes support a candidate of the opposite political party they're in, I generally trust them more.  🙂

My dd recently told me about The Conversation, so I now get their daily emails.  

https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are

I hadn't heard about Allsides!

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 8:36 AM, Quill said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 1:23 PM, Dreamergal said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 1:23 PM, Dreamergal said:

 

.

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dreaming of Books said:

The only one that I can think of as being slightly less biased is "The Economist". The NYT is known to be biased. You probably recall Bari Weiss's resignation. The Atlantic is biased also. I don't have a problem with bias. I would just prefer it if all news outlets would say exactly what they are. Call a spade a spade and be man enough to do so. They need to stop pretending to be all fair and unbiased, when clearly they are not. None of them. Hence why I barely look at any news anymore. 

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed, if you do read it, you're misinformed.” - Denzel Washington

I agree that the NYT and The Atlantic are biased. I do not find The Economist to be heavily biased in any direction and I see articles that support both more-liberal and more-conservative views. (I was just reading an article that was critical of Montgomery County, MD’s stance keeping all kids virtual for 11 months - a view more often held on the right.) 

However, I don’t go into NYTs or The Atlantic with a belief that they are unbiased. AFAIK, they don’t bill themselves that way, either. Same goes for when I sometimes watch CNN. I know Chris Cuomo is coming from the left, and Don Lemon comes even more emphatically from the left. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I generally agree with a good bit of what they are saying, so it doesn’t bother me. If it does bother me at times, I change the channel and watch House Hunters.

I have never heard either of these two CNN anchors say or hint that they are “fair and balanced.” I’ve heard that on Fox News, though; it used to be their tag line, though I don’t know if it still is. 

[Pawz4me]

16 minutes ago, Dreaming of Books said:

 

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed, if you do read it, you're misinformed.” - Denzel Washington

Actual historical analysis of that saying. 

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:51 PM, Pawz4me said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:51 PM, Quill said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Pawz4me]

8 minutes ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Who cares who said it? 

 

Everyone posting on a forum about classical education should care about incorrect citing of quotes.

JMHO, of course.

(And the irony of citing something incorrectly whilst lecturing the media on misinformation is not lost on me. 😉 )

Edited February 27, 2021 by Pawz4me

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 6:06 PM, Pawz4me said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Good. Taxpayers have to pay for their services. 

No. Not exactly. If you want to watch television or stream content from the terrestrial broadcasters you have to pay for a TV licence. But if you don’t,  you don't.  You can listen to the radio without a licence.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Laura Corin

[Moonhawk]

4 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

We're each going to believe what we wish to believe. No one ever changes their mind and opinion anyway.

I have to get out my soapbox every time I hear this. 

This is not true. This is not correct. This is biased towards being a victim and biased towards a closed mindset, and it should not be encouraged on an education board. 

Especially on a thread about news sources, it would seem the very point of discussing this is so that we can better make our own opinions and be swayed by multiple viewpoints during that process.

I have changed my mind and my opinion many many times because of posts/posters on this board. I have had good conversations (and read others') on this board. Others have also expressed that the board has helped them either change their mind or have a more nuanced view of a situation even if they held to their original position. 

By saying "no one ever changes their mind and opinion anyway" we are excusing ourselves from questioning OUR OWN opinions and opening OUR OWN minds to anyone's responses or points. Once we decide that "no one" else will be open enough to really consider our disagreement, we preemptively judge others to be close-minded, or misinformed, or stupid, or bigoted, or what have you. And instantly remove all requirements from ourselves of listening to WHY they may be disagreeing, since we can just shrug, "They aren't willing to, so why should I?"

When people aren't agreeing with us, and taking the time to type out their reasons for disagreeing, it is in our best interest to actually stop and think about what they are saying. Isn't that why we are talking in the first place, especially in a forum like this? It can help give us more info on the topic, it can help us better understand why others have come to different conclusions, it can help us pinpoint and expand on why we hold our own view, and it can, indeed, change our own mind and opinion. 

We don't have an OBLIGATION to change our minds, but we shouldn't be too proud to consider it a possibility. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Moonhawk

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

I read that Fox doesn't use that slogan anymore. 

CNN's slogan is "The Most Trusted Name in News! Ha ha! I almost choked on my water!

To me, there is a difference in a slogan touted by the organization vs. an anchor saying it themselves. Not much difference, I grant you, but for example, Bill O’Reilly used to bill his own show as “The No-Spin Zone” and Steve Doocy himself would say Fox & Friends was “fair and balanced.” Once in a blue moon, they would interview Hillary Clinton or some Democratic congressperson and they would talk about how that is “proof” they are so very fair and balanced 🙄

I personally don’t recall ever hearing a news opinion anchor on CNN call themselves fair and balanced or bill themselves as “no spin”. I don’t watch them much, though, and only during a particular time frame anyway, so I have mostly seen Cuomo and Lemon with an occasional Anderson Cooper thrown in. 

[Negin]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:56 PM, Moonhawk said:

 

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Negin]

.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Negin

[Melissa Louise]

There are good liberal journalists, who strive to produce fair, reliable and grounded journalism. Even at the NYT, on occasion. In theory, how one votes shouldn't make any difference to the news copy you produce. 

I do, however, agree over-representation of particular narrow politics in journalism is a problem re bias, just as it is in academia,  but the problems with journalism are far deeper that it attracting ppl from one side of politics. The whole journalism ecosystem is decaying.

Substacks are one response, but I can't see them solving much. 

Alice Dreger has blogged (I think it was on a blog?) about her commitment to local reporting as a place to do good, meaningful journalism.

 

[Melissa Louise]

On 10/3/2020 at 1:00 PM, ktgrok said:

I'm not a fan of WaPo, and I'm liberal, lol. But there headlines are SO sensational/biased, even when the articles are not. (and sometimes they are). They have a mix of really fantastic journalism and a bunch of click bait, in my opinion. 

BBC, NPR are my main news sources, with Atlantic for longer form stuff. 

As for social media, I don't use it for news, so the whole uproar over censorship doesn't really effect my use of it. I'm using it to connect with people I know, or to discuss say, decluttering. I assume any news I see there is fake. 

FB blocked all news here for a few weeks or so. Literally did not notice. I'm old fashioned and read my news from a website. Or have it sent to me in an email. 

[Melissa in Australia]

53 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

FB blocked all news here for a few weeks or so. Literally did not notice. I'm old fashioned and read my news from a website. Or have it sent to me in an email. 

same.

I even listen to the radio - Aussie ABC radio

[Melissa Louise]

23 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

same.

I even listen to the radio - Aussie ABC radio

Me too. 

[Soror]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

FB blocked all news here for a few weeks or so. Literally did not notice. I'm old fashioned and read my news from a website. Or have it sent to me in an email. 

I agree.

FB, Youtube, etc are shit places to get your news, no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. There is so much out there that is  untrue and people see it so many times they think it must be true. There are people out there that edit audio and video to fit their agenda. People that attribute quotes to the wrong people or take them out of context. No one should believe anything they read on social media unless they track the source and doublecheck it against other sources. AP has a section called fact check that goes over each week various memes etc out there that are either entirely false or partly false, it is worth a read to stay up on different bs out there.

I read from a variety of places and countries. My feed covers news from India, Ireland, Britain, etc. I think a lot of talk about fake news would be solved if people read more wildly they would realize that no, xyz is not made up people know this around the world it is just certain people in the US spinning things to fit their agenda saying otherwise. My homepage has Fox News, NPR, Al Jazeera, and BBC. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Soror

[Wheres Toto]

6 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Something I just read the other day. That 13:1 ratio and that 96% are both quite telling. 

"Self-identified liberals outnumber conservatives in journalism by a ratio of thirteen to one.

In 2016, 96 percent of the media’s political donations went to Hillary Clinton.

Only 9.2 percent of academic faculty members identify as conservative.

The late-night shows are almost exclusively dedicated to ridiculing conservatives.

Hollywood actors take great pleasure in using their platforms to express their discontent with the opinions of half the country. And should any of these pop-culture icons commit the ultimate sin of engaging in friendly dialogue with the likes conservatives, they are viciously ostracized.

The elements of culture that we should share—music, movies, comedy, education—have been weaponized against political opponents, and even the American story itself."

Maybe they are "both quite telling" but are they accurate?   Where did you read this, because it doesn't seem accurate.  Just look at the media that withdrew funding from Trump after January 6th.    

[mom31257]

Following. 

[historically accurate]

7 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Something I just read the other day. That 13:1 ratio and that 96% are both quite telling. 

"Self-identified liberals outnumber conservatives in journalism by a ratio of thirteen to one.

In 2016, 96 percent of the media’s political donations went to Hillary Clinton.

Only 9.2 percent of academic faculty members identify as conservative.

The late-night shows are almost exclusively dedicated to ridiculing conservatives.

Hollywood actors take great pleasure in using their platforms to express their discontent with the opinions of half the country. And should any of these pop-culture icons commit the ultimate sin of engaging in friendly dialogue with the likes conservatives, they are viciously ostracized.

The elements of culture that we should share—music, movies, comedy, education—have been weaponized against political opponents, and even the American story itself."

OK, I like sources, so I went looking. I couldn't find this exact thing (which is quoted, so if you could provide the source, I'd appreciate it). 

I did, however, find this study, printed in 2020, that does say that by studying journalists' responses on Twitter, they found a left majority (vast majority). However, in doing the experiment, they found no substantial differences in journalist's choosing or not choosing to run a story on a campaign regardless of candidate's political party. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/14/eaay9344.full

From the study: In short, despite being dominantly liberals/Democrats, journalists do not seem to be exhibiting liberal media bias (or conservative media bias) in what they choose to cover. This null is vitally important, showing that, overall, journalists do not display political gatekeeping bias in what they choose to cover.

[Jean in Newcastle]

7 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

FB blocked all news here for a few weeks or so. Literally did not notice. I'm old fashioned and read my news from a website. Or have it sent to me in an email. 

I know what you're getting at, but did have a bit of a giggle at using the word "old fashioned" to describe getting news from a website or email.  Or maybe I'm so old fashioned that I remember getting news at the front door in a print newspaper (and only stopped doing that relatively recently).