Jump to content

Menu

Alternative sources for news and social media


Recommended Posts

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 by Soror
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.    

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dreaming of Books said:

Yes, one would HOPE that you are correct and that would be the case. Hence why I wrote my original post above with regards to the BBC covering up the Holocaust.

I wrote that post because of inaccuracies. Like saying the BBC covered up the Holocaust. To me, it means the BBC denied the Holocaust and that is a very damning statement to make. This line in particular.

On 2/26/2021 at 3:45 AM, Dreaming of Books said:

I was shocked when I looked into the history of BBC news. They wouldn't mention the Holocaust or anything to do with Jews in WWII. They said all the information only came from Jews anyway and that the British were as anti-semitic as the Germans so they might have sympathy with them.

 

They did not cover up the Holocaust, this is what happened according the attached article. They did cover the Holocaust, but certain parts of it were not and they have explained why. Should they have covered that part  ? Looking back, probably is my answer.

What might account for the Hungarian Service’s delay in reporting the onset of mass murder? Even without confirmed reports, asks Milland, could not the BBC have simply used its knowledge of the fate that had befallen Jews in other countries the Nazis had occupied? But such a stance, he continues, would “have run counter to BBC policy of only broadcasting what was known to be absolutely true and confirmed – a crucial part of [its] strategy in securing an audience.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/dont-mention-the-jews-how-wartime-bbc-failed-to-issue-holocaust-warnings/

In a world where Holocaust denial is a thing it matters to know that the BBC covered the Holocaust with issues but covered it.

On 2/26/2021 at 3:45 AM, Dreaming of Books said:

 

 

Quote

I then read a post basically defending the BBC, whom I don't believe needs a defense. Why is anyone defending any news organization? They're all biased anyway. Every single one of them. They certainly don't need our sympathy and support. They can write their own checks. She also wrote, "I did not write this post to convince you, but tell you from where I am coming from." When I wrote, "Everyone's going to believe what they're going to believe," it was in response to that. One person loves the BBC and the other doesn't. And so it goes

I wrote that post because the BBC being accused of being pro-Palestine to show they have been accused of bias by others too. Why I wrote that is because in the US especially certain news organization are either pro-left and anti-right or pro-right so they can be accused of bias in a narrow way.  Not by many different types of people. To tell the entire story. 

Quote

 

. One person may be anti-vaccine and the other is not. I could go on and on, but I'm sure that you get my drift. In all my 53 years, I have seldom seen people change their minds on issues, except when they choose to do so. It does take an open mind. Sadly, that's becoming harder and harder to find. 

My next thoughts are in general, not directed at you.

Throughout this whole pandemic I had to decide what matters to me. I used to believe in open mindedness, looking at the other point of view and learning from others. But I had to decide how much is being open minded, how much should I consider as an other point of view in a world where the news media were described as fake news and enemies of the people. After Jan 6th and seeing how close we came to lose democracy it matters more to me to speak up more, push back if I think I need to. On this very board is a thread where one very kind person interested in research seems to be drawn into the web of conspiracy and lies. It hurts my heart to see that. Real people are affected. 

I am thus drawing the lines more firmly around things that are important to me.  Anti certain things  if they hurt people are no longer an alternate opinion to me, but harmful. I do not consider conspiracy theories as another opinion but as harmful. 

In this environment I believe credible news sources are needed. The question to me on this thread is which media  is credible and  I said the BBC. When it was called out I wanted to explain why and tell what I consider the whole story, not part of it. I have tried to give as much citation as possible. 

Credible news sources matter to me in a world where even knitting groups and Churches are being invaded by conspiracy theories and the kindness and empathy of people is being exploited for political reasons. So I will absolutely write what I know and how I reached that conclusion. It is up to people to decide. It is not a question of defending anyone. To me the BBC has bias but they are credible. There is no perfect news media in this world, but credible is important and that to me is the BBC and I explained why.

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find fair and balanced to sometimes mean there is never right or wrong and always two sides to a story. Well, sometimes there aren’t two sides of the story. Everybody always invokes Hitler and Stalin. So here you go. Imagine giving airtime to people like them to be fair and balanced? And at their time, they had plenty of apologists. 
 

Edited by Roadrunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

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). 

We did get a print newspaper every morning when I was a kid, and I think I only stopped buying print papers maybe 15 years ago? So you're not that much more old fashioned than me 🙂

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, historically accurate said:

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.

Yes, bias is way more of a problem in opinion and non-news 'news'. Which is a problem, because even traditionally journalistic outlets have an increasing reliance on the cheaper to produce opinion- clicks. Which are highly viral.

Bias also creeps in (to quite well known, respected legacy media) when sources of funding which buy themed coverage over a particular time period are kept from the readership.

Just about all the problems with news - the serious kind, which we previously got from newspapers - are down to the loss of advertising revenue in the wake of the internet. 

That includes loss of local papers, and a journalist-apprentice model, flattening the class diversity in journalism. 

These are all everyday topics if you speak to a journalist with more than a decades experience. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust the National Review and The Wall Street Journal; any of the others get a quick perusal to see what the crazies On neither side of the aisle I thinking.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 4:50 PM, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, bias is way more of a problem in opinion and non-news 'news'. Which is a problem, because even traditionally journalistic outlets have an increasing reliance on the cheaper to produce opinion- clicks. Which are highly viral.

Bias also creeps in (to quite well known, respected legacy media) when sources of funding which buy themed coverage over a particular time period are kept from the readership.

Just about all the problems with news - the serious kind, which we previously got from newspapers - are down to the loss of advertising revenue in the wake of the internet. 

That includes loss of local papers, and a journalist-apprentice model, flattening the class diversity in journalism. 

These are all everyday topics if you speak to a journalist with more than a decades experience. 

The themed coverage issue is pernicious. A good example being The Guardian accepting money from a particular organisation to publish articles on agriculture. Even if they are identified as part of a series it amounts to lobby groups influencing content, and there is the effects also of what articles about agriculture they might reject because they don't fit what is required or because they don't need more articles on the same topic.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that media bias along political lines may not always be the best way to understand the problem. How journalists are trained has changed significantly since the 80s. Until then journalism was a career that was open to anyone who could write and included a significant diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds among it's reporters. This is no longer the case, most journalists now have at least undergraduate degrees in journalism and often masters degrees. At a paper like the NYT the majority went to elite universities and they are an even more rarefied bunch, people who can afford to live in NYC on a pittance for several years while establishing themselves.  Strong community newspapers where many used to get their start in many cases no longer exist. 

This has really narrowed the type of person writing in the media.

One way of reading to consider, rather than just looking at different news sources, is to try and follow a variety of really good columnists from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I differentiate between "orientation" and "bias" -- not at all the same thing. NYT and WaPo have a modest lean-left orientation in their news articles; whereas WSJ, Financial Times and The Economist have a modest lean-right orientation in their news articles. (Their opinion and editorial pages are of course different; and are clearly marked as being opinion or editorial, and in general the orientation is much sharper on those pages.) All five employ actual on-the-ground investigative reporters who actually chase down original stories; all five fact check; all five verify sources; all five scramble to corroborate one another's scoops through their own sources. All of them make errors on occasion -- they are human -- and when they do they clearly correct or retract.

I read and trust all five.  They have slight left or right orientations, sure; but the way I use the language at least none of them are "biased."  Confronted with a story that does not align ideologically with the orientation -- Cuomo's sexual misconduct, Trump's strongarming Georgia election officials to "find the votes" to overturn the outcome -- they do not merely cover the story, they dig in furiously to find more, scoop their competitors, find corroborating sources and run with it.

I read and trust all five. You have to *pay for* all five.

 

We have come to expect and demand that we deserve to get news for free. Well, you get what you pay for.  If we are not paying for something, we are not the consumer: we are the product.  It's not a "bias" issue; it's a business model issue.

Edited by Pam in CT
reporters!!
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

One way of reading to consider, rather than just looking at different news sources, is to try and follow a variety of really good columnists from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions.

I would like to do this, did this when I was younger, very much a news junkie

 

16 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

I read and trust all five. You have to *pay for* all five.

 

In print media, it is the NYTimes I pay for and online, but more for other content and not the news. I am thinking of changing to the Weekend edition, thing stopping me is to support journalism by paying.  I grew up in a house with multiple newspapers of different languages. My parents still have a person deliver the paper and read cover to cover. I wish I had the time.

As I am getting older and bang in the middle of raising kids, working PT and with the pandemic going on, trying to keep with the pantry, cooking every.single.thing, even though I have help from DH and kids, I do not have time for this. Even if I do, the question is do I want to ? At the end of the day I am so wiped out, I relax to read and it is all fluff, twaddle and escapism. 

I sign up for breaking, the BBC, CNN, local news, from my country of origin. In many cases, they overlap. I silence my phone in the night or else in most cases I would be woken up by the noise. When I wake up in the morning, I take a look at the headlines and then get on with my day. 

I did my research and have a list of credible to me media at various level.  Locally, my country of origin, BBC for in depth, CNN mostly for breaking news. 

I vacillate between wanting have time to read and analyze more and thinking about using my time to relax. Still trying to decide which is more beneficial to me personally. 

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SlowRiver said:

The themed coverage issue is pernicious. A good example being The Guardian accepting money from a particular organisation to publish articles on agriculture. Even if they are identified as part of a series it amounts to lobby groups influencing content, and there is the effects also of what articles about agriculture they might reject because they don't fit what is required or because they don't need more articles on the same topic.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that media bias along political lines may not always be the best way to understand the problem. How journalists are trained has changed significantly since the 80s. Until then journalism was a career that was open to anyone who could write and included a significant diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds among it's reporters. This is no longer the case, most journalists now have at least undergraduate degrees in journalism and often masters degrees. At a paper like the NYT the majority went to elite universities and they are an even more rarefied bunch, people who can afford to live in NYC on a pittance for several years while establishing themselves.  Strong community newspapers where many used to get their start in many cases no longer exist. 

This has really narrowed the type of person writing in the media.

One way of reading to consider, rather than just looking at different news sources, is to try and follow a variety of really good columnists from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions.

Having just read what happened to the NYT's award winning health journalist, I'd say the class issue is well and truly rearing its ugly head, despite polite readership looking the other way. 

The Guardian is a mess. It's still free local news coverage for me and supplements the national broadcaster but it's not the paper it was (I used to support them financially but stopped after some correspondence on the matter of paid-content from lobbyists). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...