Best Online News Sources? Paid or Unpaid?

[beeatnik]

There’s a difference between the Guardian and NYT?

[takashi]

There’s a difference between the Guardian and NYT?

What is your preferred news source?

[beeatnik]

Preferred Sources.


Local interest, food, sports (the trivial or inconsequential): LA Times

Travel: NYT

Europe and ME: Grayzone

Culture and Health: unherd.com

US political and current events: Twitter and Substack citizen journalism. The whole umbrella, including disgraced former mainstream media journalists (Taibbi, Greenwald), conspiratorial marxist accounts and major non-western feeds (RT, aljazeera, etc).

A regular at my favorite dive bar used to write for The Guardian. I asked him if he left due to the economics of the post-print media landscape. Spewing the most colorful Brit expletives, he accused The Guardian of being a right wing corporate rag. Bias, man.

What is your preferred news source?

[echappist]

A regular at my favorite dive bar used to write for The Guardian. I asked him if he left due to the economics of the post-print media landscape. Spewing the most colorful Brit expletives, he accused The Guardian of being a right wing corporate rag. Bias, man.

Couldn't be wider of the mark. And given that this is a single-source commentary from a former employee (the circumstances of whose separation from the organization is unknown), a comment to be take with huge grain of salt.

The Guardian has always maintained a left-of-center editorial stance, with some occasional columnist going quite left (as in Corbin Soviet-philia left). Perhaps someone with views more aligned with the Daily Worker might call it right wing corporate rag, but both in substance and in reputation, it is decidedly not right wing.

To wit, it recently ran a sport column titled As the World Series approaches, baseball still struggles with racial bias. Yes, a typically right wing rag would definitely publish such an article.

The actual right wing corporate rag is actually the Daily Telegraph (aka Torygraph).

The paper of record is the Times of London (center right). The paper of commerce is the Financial Times (with stance most comparable to that of The Economist).

To end this on a lighter note, the list of papers makes for a convenient segue to this clip from Yes, Minister on the various British newspapers (skip to ~0:50 for the start of actual joke).

[beeatnik]

Just shared the anecdote to illustrate how my perception of The Guardian as a Pravdaesque organ of radical progressive ideology isn’t shared by my left-leaning barfly pal.

Couldn't be wider of the mark. And given that this is a single-source commentary from a former employee (the circumstances of whose separation from the organization is unknown), a comment to be take with huge grain of salt.

The Guardian has always maintained a left-of-center editorial stance, with some occasional columnist going quite left (as in Corbin Soviet-philia left). Perhaps someone with views more aligned with the Daily Worker might call it right wing corporate rag, but both in substance and in reputation, it is decidedly not right wing.

To wit, it recently ran a sport column titled As the World Series approaches, baseball still struggles with racial bias. Yes, a typically right wing rag would definitely publish such an article.

The actual right wing corporate rag is actually the Daily Telegraph (aka Torygraph).

The paper of record is the Times of London (center right). The paper of commerce is the Financial Times (with stance most comparable to that of The Economist).

To end this on a lighter note, the list of papers makes for a convenient segue to this clip from Yes, Minister on the various British newspapers (skip to ~0:50 for the start of actual joke).

[Too Tall]

I've been reading WaPo since my High School history teacher arranged for no consequences newsprint reading during her lectures.

Buh bye beeches. May the bird of paridise fly up you nose.

[Marvinlungwitz]

Interesting tines when Taylor Swift and Beyoncé exhibit more political courage than two of our largest newspapers.

[bigbill]

As an information warfare guy, I guess I don't get the outrage over a newspaper not supporting a candidate. Are so emotionally invested in a candidate that everything is all or nothing? I want a media that presents the news without providing me an opinion, and that keeps opinion pieces out of the news. I don't seek out media based on how well it aligns with my personal beliefs. My social media is flooded with opinions in the form of "news" that folks share because it aligns with their beliefs, factual or not. I just want November 5th to be over, although I doubt it will be before December.

As a nation, I have serious concerns about outside influence in the final week before the election. We know Russian, Iran, and North Korea have and will continue to sow discord in our society, seeking to further divide a nation already split 50/50. If Harris wins the popular vote and loses the Electoral, which is a real possibility, we'll see media flooded with how the Electoral College needs to be abandoned. And, no matter who wins, will Congress and the Senate be willing to work with the opposite party?

Our choices are poor this year, and I think it will take until 2028 to get a fresh group of candidates that understand "moderate."

[vertical_doug]

Our choices are poor this year, and I think it will take until 2028 to get a fresh group of candidates that understand "moderate."

i think you are mistaken. I doubt the present two party system will produce a moderate. Both parties are largely beholden to their business interests and argue at the fringe of the social issues. Although I was not a fan of JFK Jr, I think he showed how hard it is for an independent candidate to get on the ballot. This is a hurdle by the DNC/RNC to maintain their duopoly. Now maybe if these two clown parties keep fighting, at some point enough big money interests or a grassroots group will get a third party going in congress. If the Republicans or democrats ever have to form a coalition gov with a 3rd party, maybe it can begin to sideline the most extreme elements of both parties. If you think about it from a diversity and size of the country, it is really unbelievable that there are only two political parties at a national level.


I am not holding my breath, because if anything, big money enjoys the status quo. .

[BBB]

To end this on a lighter note, the list of papers makes for a convenient segue to this clip from Yes, Minister on the various British newspapers (skip to ~0:50 for the start of actual joke).

Hilarious! Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were TV gold!

[Mark Kelly]

As an information warfare guy, I guess I don't get the outrage over a newspaper not supporting a candidate.

I think the "outrage" is more that the decision seems to be due to Bezos acting to protect the rents he extracts from his monopsony at all costs.

[bigbill]

i think you are mistaken. I doubt the present two party system will produce a moderate. Both parties are largely beholden to their business interests and argue at the fringe of the social issues. Although I was not a fan of JFK Jr, I think he showed how hard it is for an independent candidate to get on the ballot. This is a hurdle by the DNC/RNC to maintain their duopoly. Now maybe if these two clown parties keep fighting, at some point enough big money interests or a grassroots group will get a third party going in congress. If the Republicans or democrats ever have to form a coalition gov with a 3rd party, maybe it can begin to sideline the most extreme elements of both parties. If you think about it from a diversity and size of the country, it is really unbelievable that there are only two political parties at a national level.


I am not holding my breath, because if anything, big money enjoys the status quo. .

Joe Biden was to be a "place holder" while the Democrats developed a candidate for 2024. In 2020, Biden was ramrodded to be the candidate even though there were viable, younger democratic candidates participating in the democratic primaries. Harris dropped before the first primary because she was polling poorly. People viewed the "uncle Joe" persona as someone who would be competent in office and could beat Trump. The people who decided on Biden wrecked their party. The rise of Trump wrecked the republicans. This is the last hurrah for Trump, he either wins and can't run again, or he loses and is too old in 2028. Tulsi Gabbard, now a republican, is unpopular with the democrats and viewed warily by the republicans, maybe she is the new hope. If you get a chance, there is a Jocko Podcast where she is interviewed for three plus hours. It's a good listen while tinkering in the garage to escape relatives during the holiday. The Jocko interview of RFK junior is fascinating as well, especially his experiences growing up Kennedy.

[72gmc]

Perhaps foolishly I look at coalition models with a bit of envy … the two party system seems so distorted by calculations about who can win based on who is in the race, rather than issues and policies. At least coalition governments add more points of view, I tell myself.

[echappist]

As an information warfare guy, I guess I don't get the outrage over a newspaper not supporting a candidate. Are so emotionally invested in a candidate that everything is all or nothing? I want a media that presents the news without providing me an opinion, and that keeps opinion pieces out of the news. I don't seek out media based on how well it aligns with my personal beliefs. My social media is flooded with opinions in the form of "news" that folks share because it aligns with their beliefs, factual or not. I just want November 5th to be over, although I doubt it will be before December.

An endorsement by definition is not made by the news section of a newspaper, and this was the head of the editorial section (as in Will Lewis acting on behalf of Bezos) choosing not to endorse. So already, your comments are tangential and not relevant to the issue at hand; specifically, you are conflating news reporting with editorial decisions.

Then there's context. For anyone else, I'd give a pass, but as you constantly remind the forum of your MA in history (at least at [a], [b], and [c]), your choice not to analyze the context is a curious elision.

Specifically, these three issues are important in setting the context behind the abstaining from endorsing.
-issue 1), the decision not to endorse was expressly made by Bezos (see below). The editorial board itself had actually drafted an endorsement for Harris, only for it to be nixed by Bezos (article gift-linked, pertinent quotes reproduced below).
-issue 2), after the decision not to endorse was made, representatives of Bezos (specifically for Blue Origin) met with Trump. Keen observers (incl. former WaPo editor-at-large Robert Kagan, now resigned) believe that the meeting was a quid pro quo reward for the Post's editorial board staying silent. (See article on The Guardian).
-issue 3), hiring of Will Lewis as publisher, person best known for shepherding News International through the Phone Hacking Scandals, is known to engage to quid pro quo wheeling dealing.

In the context set by the foregoing, Bezo's decision comes across as one motivated by business interests. That he thought the quote "Democracy dies in darkness" meant something and made it the motto of the paper, only to demonstrate how supine he is via his inability to leave the Altar of Mammon, says it all.

The choice to let my subscription lapse is a merely one made on the basis of personal consumer decisions (one involving assigning value to financial decisions), which I think is an appropriate response for what precipitated this whole thing, an oligarch's wish to have his company maintain financial success, regardless of who the next President is.

But hey, these are just the mere remarks of some random guy on the interwebz, not a holder of an MA in history currently looking to obtain a second MA in history.

An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two people who were briefed on the sequence of events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to four people who were briefed on the decision.

[robin3mj]

The billionaires are preemptively bowing to the fascist. Doesn’t bode well.

[bigbill]

An endorsement by definition is not made by the news section of a newspaper, and this was the head of the editorial section (as in Will Lewis acting on behalf of Bezos) choosing not to endorse. So already, your comments are tangential and not relevant to the issue at hand; specifically, you are conflating news reporting with editorial decisions.

Then there's context. For anyone else, I'd give a pass, but as you constantly remind the forum of your MA in history (at least at [a], [b], and [c]), your choice not to analyze the context is a curious elision.

Specifically, these three issues are important in setting the context behind the abstaining from endorsing.
-issue 1), the decision not to endorse was expressly made by Bezos (see below). The editorial board itself had actually drafted an endorsement for Harris, only for it to be nixed by Bezos (article gift-linked, pertinent quotes reproduced below).
-issue 2), after the decision not to endorse was made, representatives of Bezos (specifically for Blue Origin) met with Trump. Keen observers (incl. former WaPo editor-at-large Robert Kagan, now resigned) believe that the meeting was a quid pro quo reward for the Post's editorial board staying silent. (See article on The Guardian).
-issue 3), hiring of Will Lewis as publisher, person best known for shepherding News International through the Phone Hacking Scandals, is known to engage to quid pro quo wheeling dealing.

In the context set by the foregoing, Bezo's decision comes across as one motivated by business interests. That he thought the quote "Democracy dies in darkness" meant something and made it the motto of the paper, only to demonstrate how supine he is via his inability to leave the Altar of Mammon, says it all.

The choice to let my subscription lapse is a merely one made on the basis of personal consumer decisions (one involving assigning value to financial decisions), which I think is an appropriate response for what precipitated this whole thing, an oligarch's wish to have his company maintain financial success, regardless of who the next President is.

But hey, these are just the mere remarks of some random guy on the interwebz, not a holder of an MA in history currently looking to obtain a second MA in history.

If you're going to take these shots at me, I get to shoot back. I have an MA in American History and I am editing my thesis in Military History, and I'm assuming that you have neither or you wouldn't have made the comment. An MA in history means a decent background of events with a focus on one event for a thesis. I am not an expert in all things history, right now I'm writing on information warfare in the period between 1760 and 1774. That's how graduate degrees in history work. I'm not sure what my education has to do with the events you list, I really don't give a shit about a newspaper and who they endorse, and fail to see how that relates to my studies or backgrounds. I think you're pissed about the current situation in the election and venting on a bike forum. I get it, you want Harris to win, and anyone who doesn't support her is evil and self-interested. I think Trump is a turd and Harris has run a terrible campaign after being hamstrung by Biden hanging on too long. I think the country is too strong to be destroyed by any one candidate and have faith in our system of democracy.


But, why is a paper required to endorse a candidate? What is the tragedy in not endorsing Harris? Do you think people are so dependent on a newspaper to tell them who to vote for? The mainstream media is overwhelmingly supporting Harris, but I guess if the Washington Post doesn't, that will be why she loses. The paper is owned by a businessman, and the readers are free to support the paper or not with their subscription. The boss has the final call and according to the Guardian link, the no endorsement deal was announced in September, so this recent development is not recent at all.

[htwoopup]

But, why is a paper required to endorse a candidate? What is the tragedy in not endorsing Harris? Do you think people are so dependent on a newspaper to tell them who to vote for? The mainstream media is overwhelmingly supporting Harris, but I guess if the Washington Post doesn't, that will be why she loses. The paper is owned by a businessman, and the readers are free to support the paper or not with their subscription. The boss has the final call and according to the Guardian link, the no endorsement deal was announced in September, so this recent development is not recent at all.

It’s not required to endorse. In fact, by the way it went down, they may have actually strengthened the argument.

That said, Jonathan Last (a Republican) wrote a great piece in Bluwark yesterday about how the Post folding to pressure shows the end of the rule of law. It has to do with that there would be “no punishment” from a Harris administration but there would from a Trump administration. Last goes chapter and verse through how this pulling of an endorsement with dancing around the reasons in indicative of the last hour before a Nation falls into a Fascist state run for a single group and how they gain power as opposed to run by and for the people. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bezos-t...utm_medium=web

The issue is not a simple fact of did they or did they not endorse someone…and who that someone is.

It is that history is repeating itself as evidenced by the ways in which the endorsement was pulled and so on.

As a historian (although a Navy guy rather than an Army guy), I am sure you are aware of the Army WWII broadsheets on Fascism.

For a broader take on this, I would suggest you read Heather Cox Richardson’s (a Historian) piece…. https://open.substack.com/pub/heathe...utm_medium=ios

As a historian, I am sure that you would agree that history is studied so that the bad parts are not repeated and we learn from that past so that future outcomes are better.