Best Online News Sources? Paid or Unpaid?

[Saab2000]

I get very little of my news and information from television (apart from fun stuff that’s often also informative on YouTube, but that’s mostly fun stuff that I enjoy like cars and cycling and other personal follies but I digress).

For a couple years I was a paid subscriber to the online New York Times. I let it lapse for a number of reasons, among them that a lot of it is opinion and often redundant and repetitive, not mentally challenging or particularly thought provoking. Some is great. Much makes me think a lot of the writers have a high opinion of themselves and their intellect and rarely leave their own bubbles.

My favorite section was the obituaries because they often highlighted the lives and careers of people we have never or rarely heard of but whose work or experiences became well known.

I’ve heard the Washington Post has a good site. It’s a paper I’ve read in paper form for years because I’ve spent years at my brother’s house in Arlington and he’s a subscriber to the paper version.

Where do folks here like to read their news, events, whatever?

A buddy of mine gets a lot from the BBC for a different perspective. NPR is generally decent.

Curious what folks read and why. May be looking for a replacement for my NYT subscription.

[echappist]

I pay for Milwaukee JS Online, WaPo, and The Guardian.

Solely for news and OpEd

Local: Milwaukee JS Online. Next to useless other than local news. Go months without reading it. Ditto for my old newspaper in Madison, WI.
National: WaPo. General news coverage is very good, but lay-out is subpar. Not as comprehensive for international. OpEs is relatively meh, with 4-5 reflexive trolls; though Jennifer Rubin has been quite a worthwhile read.
International: The Guardian. Much greater breadth, in particular for international coverage. The OpEd can get downright cringe at times; think a rotating cast of Maureen Dowd types, who really don't offer much more than kvetching from their own lives plus occasional observation of current events. Some front page articles have click-bait titles. I willingly pay ~$200/yr for it, but technically all this is free.

I used to subscribe to the NYT, but no more. Something about the paper just grates in a very smarmy manner, from the OpEd writers who seem to be divided between a majority that hews very close to a certain manifestation of progressive ideals and a vocal minority who seem to be reflexively against the ideas of the former, with neither really offering much; to Real Estate ad-copies parading as "news". And cancelling my subscription literally took ~75 minutes and was a experience worse than dealing with my internet provider. The upside is that if the general layout could be customized to show only the important stuff (international and national news) and cut out all the other junk, it's probably the only coverage one would need.

But I much prefer The Guardian in terms of the other stuff (arts & entertainment, recipes, and soccer coverage); alas why I willingly pay for it. Also, WaPo's Sebastian Smee write delightful columns re: the arts.

[bigbill]

BBC, NPR, and Fox Business. When I have time to sit down and read news stories, Early Bird. https://www.defensenews.com/ebb/

[Saab2000]

What I’m seeking is source devoid of blatant bias and partisanship. Just good reporting and analysis. I remember listening to NPR for years in the car and need to tune in more regularly again. I generally found it to be good reporting and good analysis.

[72gmc]

"Don't pick one out of the barrel, go to the tree" -- James Bond as an old beat cop

I was taught by news directors to go to the sources of the sources (where does WaPo get its news, outside of its reporters?). I favor sources that make corrections a feature of their standards and mission.

AP News (corrections policy)
Reuters (corrections policy)
Christian Science Monitor (a source trusted by many of my mentors and reliable topical sources back in the day; I think their application of values helps their content trend to curiosity-driven rather than bias-driven)

I go regional to triangulate on national stories, e.g., Detroit Free Press / Chicago Sun Times / St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dallas Morning News / Austin American-Statesman, Miami Herald /Atlanta Journal-Constitution, LA Times / San Jose Mercury News. You can pick up the various flavors of favoritism this way (sometimes within a state, as with Texas) and determine the "middle where the truth lies" for yourself. It's harder to go regional these days with paywalls, of course. NPR is pretty good at doing this aggregation for the listener or reader.

[davids]

[j44ke]

Opinion editorials are not news. If you are looking for news there, you are making a mistake.

NYT, WashPo, Guardian, ProPublica, 538, New Yorker, New York Magazine

[72gmc]

I am seeing this same movie again in local television and the radio business is also a rerun of the same.

I left radio in 1999 and the previews to this movie were already running … didn’t help, doesn’t help, that regional network owners who prefer a homogenized, often ideological content bullhorn exist. A good owner has to be philosophically committed to staffing for local news and have the pockets to afford it. Bonneville International, owned by the LDS church, was the owner of KIRO for most of my time and seemed to be a big supporter of local people making local content. They even gave everyone coupons for free turkeys at the holidays.

[cny rider]

If you're interested in economics, try Bloomberg.
It's expensive but it's worth it.

[echelon_john]

The Economist is relatively spendy but excellent. Good balance of business news, geopolitics, macroeconomic trends, and a smattering of cultural commentary.

I consume that, BBC World Service, NY Times/WaPo, and Guardian.

[Bob Ross]

I’ve heard the Washington Post has a good site.

I have a paid subscription to both the Washington Post and New York Times sites, plus I frequent NPR, AP, and BBC regularly...and I always try to check in on Fox News if there's some hot item that I suspect might have a completely different interpretation for folks who support "alternative facts". (I also frequent the All Sides Now site just to see how different news organizations frame the same story.)

But if I had to use only one news site, it would probably be The Washington Post. Deep, comprehensive, articulate and intelligent coverage, and reasonably objective (except when it's not, and then it's conspicuously labeled "Opinion").

[fastupslowdown]

I get very little of my news and information from television (apart from fun stuff that’s often also informative on YouTube, but that’s mostly fun stuff that I enjoy like cars and cycling and other personal follies but I digress).

For a couple years I was a paid subscriber to the online New York Times. I let it lapse for a number of reasons, among them that a lot of it is opinion and often redundant and repetitive, not mentally challenging or particularly thought provoking. Some is great. Much makes me think a lot of the writers have a high opinion of themselves and their intellect and rarely leave their own bubbles.

My favorite section was the obituaries because they often highlighted the lives and careers of people we have never or rarely heard of but whose work or experiences became well known.

I’ve heard the Washington Post has a good site. It’s a paper I’ve read in paper form for years because I’ve spent years at my brother’s house in Arlington and he’s a subscriber to the paper version.

Where do folks here like to read their news, events, whatever?

A buddy of mine gets a lot from the BBC for a different perspective. NPR is generally decent.

Curious what folks read and why. May be looking for a replacement for my NYT subscription.

There's really a wealth of good websites. I look at AP, Reuters, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Economist, FT, BBC, Axios, BBC some of which are partially or totally free. I do also look at the NY Times, Washington Post and The WSJ. -Mike G

[fastupslowdown]

There's really a wealth of good websites. I look at AP, Reuters, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Economist, FT, BBC, Axios, BBC some of which are partially or totally free. I do also look at the NY Times, Washington Post and The WSJ. -Mike G

[sk_tle]

I don't pay for anything as my company is giving us a proquest account so I get headlines from an rss reader and look for the articles in proquest.

It might be useful to check what your state/government gives you access. For example little of them know it but all french people have free access to the national library online access which gives access to most national and some international newspapers. I guess many other states/governments provide similar access to their citizens without publicly advertising it.

[Drew]

What about Facebook as a news source? As a historian, it makes my brain itch, but there are some real nuggets out there. Someone on my HOA group made a comment that people should be required to wear helmets when they ride in the neighborhood. I said that I agree and that they should be vaccinated for Covid as well. I don't know if I'm kicked out of the group yet.

Stupid games, stupid prizes…

[Tom]

One could argue that journalism that takes pains to present all sides of a story with the same merit assigned, aka objectivity, is entirely misguided. One argument is right, the other wrong and it is up to the reader to apply their critical judgment to decide which. Present both arguments as equally right guarantees to be wrong every time.

It hinges on the premise that the reader can apply critical judgment so I guess we're screwed.

[Mabouya]

Here's a candidate for "not very good" news source:

(Not the BBC, but the sources described in the story)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64677232

[jclay]

For news, analysis and/or current affairs perspectives (not all of them cover all three elements) I go to these and similar:

The Guardian
Truthout
Florida Phoenix
The Independent
The Intercept
NPR (which isn't what it used to be)
Tom Dispatch
League of Women Voters
Naked Capitalism
The Hill
Foreign Affairs Magazine occasionally
CNN (mostly for "what happened", not analysis)
Fox, Heritage Foundation and similar very occasionally to read what the bald faced liars throwing gasoline around are peddling and what the folks who think that if we could just get back to Leave it to Beaver time everything would be swell.

[echappist]

Two recent events have shed some light on how newspapers operate.

One is the Discord leak. It's somewhat amazing the way various newspapers are reporting on actual content of the leak, in a manner reminiscent of scavengers drawn to carrion. But perhaps that's even too kind of a characterization, as that analogy removes any agency from the newspapers. I'm more inclined to think of the various newspapers as people grabbing cash strewn everywhere in the aftermath of a bank robber whose loot got dispersed during a chase.

The other is just how little coverage certain events are reported. Take, for instance, French Constitutional Council upholding the retirement reform pushed through by Macron. On WaPo's website, I have to dig into the international section; ditto for the NYT. The Guardian, with its broader (or perhaps more Euro-centric) perspective, has this item on its front page. The NYT might claim to print all the news worthy to be printed, but one has to dig to actually locate that article. There's something odd about having to dig to get to the actual newsworthy stuff, whereas the fluff is right there on the homepage.

[j44ke]

Two recent events have shed some light on how newspapers operate.

One is the Discord leak. It's somewhat amazing the way various newspapers are reporting on actual content of the leak, in a manner reminiscent of scavengers drawn to carrion. But perhaps that's even too kind of a characterization, as that analogy removes any agency from the newspapers. I'm more inclined to think of the various newspapers as people grabbing cash strewn everywhere in the aftermath of a bank robber whose loot got dispersed during a chase.

The other is just how little coverage certain events are reported. Take, for instance, French Constitutional Council upholding the retirement reform pushed through by Macron. On WaPo's website, I have to dig into the international section; ditto for the NYT. The Guardian, with its broader (or perhaps more Euro-centric) perspective, has this item on its front page. The NYT might claim to print all the news worthy to be printed, but one has to dig to actually locate that article. There's something odd about having to dig to get to the actual newsworthy stuff, whereas the fluff is right there on the homepage.

The Times writes of the content for the weekend editions on Thursday with a Friday deadline for up-to-date news coverage. So it has to be something momentous and easily understood to do actual reporting on the weekend. I am exaggerating but only sort of. Leftover newspaper behavior. Now that everything is Internet based, yeah I agree that there should be more "active" reporting, at least on Saturday.

As far as reporting the contents of the leaked documents, once they are out there, they are news - news from the perspective of the leak, news from the perspective of what was leaked, and news from the perspective of the content versus what we've been told previously. It definitely isn't the press' responsibility to keep national secrets (though historically they have in key moments.)