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]

[Peter Polack]

I read the print edition of my local newspaper, daily. The subscription includes the on-line version but I never use it.

NPR.

My local non-commercial, community radio station offers on-line subscriptions to the New York Times or the Washington Post in exchange for an annual membership to the radio station. Since they chose those two newspapers, I inferred they were reliable, respected sources of news. I would choose either of them.

While you have a certain distaste for the NYT, I'd still say keep reading it; it's your job as the reader to apply critical thinking, as it seems you have, and found a certain disagreeable bias. Not a problem; it's important to be exposed to opposite viewpoints whether you like them or not to see whether the other side is full of poop or not.

Looking at David's chart above, and considering your current opinion of the NYT, I'd say try balancing out your NYT with the WSJ. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; you've admitted there are things you like in the NYT so why give them up? There may be things I don't like in my local newspaper but I can ignore them if I so choose, and so can you.

[robin3mj]

I pay for the Washington Post, NY Times, and FT and read them all daily. Of the three, I’m thinking of letting my WaPo sub expire, even though it’s my “local” paper.

[Saab2000]

I read the print edition of my local newspaper, daily. The subscription includes the on-line version but I never use it.

NPR.

My local non-commercial, community radio station offers on-line subscriptions to the New York Times or the Washington Post in exchange for an annual membership to the radio station. Since they chose those two newspapers, I inferred they were reliable, respected sources of news. I would choose either of them.

While you have a certain distaste for the NYT, I'd still say keep reading it; it's your job as the reader to apply critical thinking, as it seems you have, and found a certain disagreeable bias. Not a problem; it's important to be exposed to opposite viewpoints whether you like them or not to see whether the other side is full of poop or not.

Looking at David's chart above, and considering your current opinion of the NYT, I'd say try balancing out your NYT with the WSJ. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; you've admitted there are things you like in the NYT so why give them up? There may be things I don't like in my local newspaper but I can ignore them if I so choose, and so can you.

Good thoughts. I want to like the NYT. It’s got tons of good content. Identity as a “this”:or “that” is far too simple. Critical thinking is probably the best thing I learned in education. I hope this is ever expanding.

Perhaps I’ll resubscribe soon. As well as to another. My goal is to learn and be challenged, not just to have existing thoughts reinforced.

NPR has long been there. Perhaps it’s time to reconnect.

[Mabouya]

I'm not sure if these are necessarily the "best," but they work for me:

NYT (paid) & BBC (free) web sites. The free part of the Le Monde web site (French).

NPR radio, which carries BBC radio at night.

[thollandpe]

Media Bias Chart [sorry I can’t bear to see it again]

This chart is oriented around an imaginary “center”, which I think is a fallacy. Those x and y axes are certainly not linear.

@Saab2000, I think the New York Times still has some amazing journalism going on. The interview with the Connecticut state trooper on the 10th anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre was heart wrenching.

This single series could make my point, but I’ll add some more below anyway. This is required reading, imho/atmo/ipso facto:

The 1619 Project

And while The Guardian is doing some stupendous work, investigative journalism is still alive and well, and fucking fantastic and important and necessary at NYT because they still bring it as well as anybody:

Billions in Hidden Riches for Family of Chinese Leader
The ISIS Files
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

Also the Pulitzer-winning, 18-month investigation of The Grifter-in-Chief’s finances that objectively revealed that his claims of self-made wealth and supreme business acumen were utter horseshit.

T**** Took Part in Suspect Schemes to Avoid Tax Bills
11 Takeaways From The Times’s Investigation Into T****’s Wealth
Four Ways Fred T**** Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich
City Officials Join Effort To Examine T****’s Taxes
A Scheme Aided the T****s. Tenants Are Paying.

There’s also the non-political stuff.

Half the World Has a Clitoris. Why Don’t Doctors Study It?
The Sublime Beauty of My Friend Bob Saget’s Filthy Comedy

[TMB]

I subscribe to Apple News.

I can select from among as many newspapers and magazines as I could ever seriously deal with.

For my daily news feed I have the Guardian, DW, BBC , Irish Independent and Times of India.

Straits Times used to be abailable but I haven’t seen it for a while. Times of Israel is a good paper.

[vertical_doug]

Good thoughts. I want to like the NYT. It’s got tons of good content. Identity as a “this”:or “that” is far too simple. Critical thinking is probably the best thing I learned in education. I hope this is ever expanding.

Perhaps I’ll resubscribe soon. As well as to another. My goal is to learn and be challenged, not just to have existing thoughts reinforced.

NPR has long been there. Perhaps it’s time to reconnect.

I agree with this. If you examine the 'hard' news in the mainstream newspapers (FT, WSJ, NYT, WAPO) the report is usually straight forward.
When you move to the opinion pieces, you start to get weasel words (loaded language) and dismissive language which is trying to sway you at an emotional level.

This stuff is generally not worth the time.

I am liberal biased on some things, and when I read the right leaning opinion pieces the loaded language really pops out at me. When I read liberal stuff, it can sneak in on me due to my own biases.
For grins, I have been loaded articles in chatGPT and having it highlight the propaganda, weasel words, dismissive language. The results are funny and eye opening.

I definitely can slide into my own echo chamber. Not as bad as some but not innocent either.

[Chik]

The BBC have been in decline for some years, with some having difficulties stringing together a sentence, but the last few years have been astonishing for their resistance to mentioning the word "Brexit" in their reports on the economy, politics, healthcare, etc. It tells me that their place in that aforementioned chart is not in the middle.

The Guardian are good if you are able to ignore some of the waffle in opinion pieces and their republicanism unnecessarily leaking through in reporting from time to time.

I do miss the International Herald Tribune.

[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

[Scott G.]

[snip]

I definitely can slide into my own echo chamber. Not as bad as some but not innocent either.

Try C-Span Book TV, for the opposite of silo, the POV Randomizer.
The local NPR station is doing good local reporting, since the only in town newspaper
has become subscale fish wrap.

[gregl]

My local paper (and their website, syracuse.com) is typically my first news source. They often have national and international news stories published before the major news sites (CNN, etc.) by using AP as their source. Their local reporting is generally (IMO) unbiased. As Joe Friday used to say, "All we want are the facts, ma'am."

My other "go-to" news sources: AP, Reuters, NPR, PBS, NYT, and WSJ. For NYT and WSJ, I read their news and shy away from the opinions.

Greg

[echappist]

The BBC have been in decline for some years, with some having difficulties stringing together a sentence, but the last few years have been astonishing for their resistance to mentioning the word "Brexit" in their reports on the economy, politics, healthcare, etc. It tells me that their place in that aforementioned chart is not in the middle.

The Guardian are good if you are able to ignore some of the waffle in opinion pieces and their republicanism unnecessarily leaking through in reporting from time to time.

I do miss the International Herald Tribune.

The Beeb’s website has a bit too much clickbait and tabloid for my liking. The broadcast formats (e.g. World Service) is a lot better. Used to be the gold standard, but I think France24 and Deutsch Welle have at least caught up if not surpassed BBC World Service.

And then there’s the reticence on mentioning Brexit, as you mentioned.

————————————
Onto a broader point, what’s the purpose of opinion columns written by people given frequent (at least once a week) column inches? Very rarely do I find anything of value there (WaPo’s Rubin aside). The columns seem to fall into three categories: analyses of current events; musings based on some small anecdote in order to beat home a point; and prognostications. Often the analyses can be quite biased; the musings sound trite after the twentieth riffing on the same theme (think David Brooks harping on personal responsibility); and the prognostications effectively no better than the throwing of dice.

Before I attended college, there was such a mystique to these columnists. While in college and shortly after, I forced myself to read these and often came away disappointed. And now I straight up skip most of them. I really don’t get most of these, other than as a form of engaging readers, albeit sometimes in a rather cynical manner. Most of these columnist have no issue with opining on issues they understand poorly, yet most believe they have the wherewithal to opine as if they were public intellectuals. Just baffling that at the numerous august institutions mentioned, many are on the payroll…

[caleb]

We subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, and Star Tribune. We give to Minnesota Public Radio. I also regularly follow the Chronicle of Higher Ed and the National Catholic Reporter with institutional subscriptions. All of them have their own biases, but perhaps they balance one another out.

[72gmc]

I consider a staff of investigative reporters a good sign, and local outlets are often a good source for plain facts on the ground. For example, the Kansas City Star published a multi-part piece on the NCAA in the 90's that was basically a deep dive on a local business with national to global audience interest. This was before the NCAA moved its HQ to Indianapolis ... and it may have inspired them to pack faster ...

I try to separate editorial content from news and investigative content. The Seattle Times editorial board would improve the city by falling into the Elliott Bay, in my opinion, but they've had good people in the newsroom over the years.