Best Online News Sources? Paid or Unpaid?

[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.

[TTX1]

I used to find the jingle very nearly intolerable but eventually found it to be comforting especially when travelling and hearing it in the hotel room -- odd, that.

ICYMI, during the lockdown, a BBC weather guy was working from home and had the final segment - so he improvised a live drum session over the BBC outro music...



It was such a huge hit that he's done a number of encores, including this 50-drummer ensemble for a kids charity...

[Chik]

ICYMI, during the lockdown, a BBC weather guy was working from home and had the final segment - so he improvised a live drum session over the BBC outro music...



It was such a huge hit that he's done a number of encores, including this 50-drummer ensemble for a kids charity...

Haha! Brilliant! Thanks for that.

[TTX1]

Back on topic, I've found Apple News convenient - it's bundled in with another Apple service subscription that I already pay for, and I find that I end up scanning some sources I would not see if left to my own devices (sorry, bad word choice). I do wish that I could provide some preferences to lock out some things (celebrity/entertainment) and lock in others (climate/science/tech), for example.

I subscribe to the 1440 Daily Digest email, which is a free round up of headlines from various sources sent each morning - it's positioned as a non-partisan review, and I think it lives up to that promise. Also BBC and Reddit for headlines.

I actually pay for NYTimes, WaPo, Harper's, and The Atlantic. I used to sub to the WSJ, but finally had to bail - I won't give Murdoch a penny at this point.

I've turned off virtually all emails, newsletters, etc. I don't want the clutter or chatter in my inbox, and the constant barrage of sell messages actually cause friction - ok, I'm out.

Dear Internet: You want feedback? OK, here it is: Stop asking for feedback! Now get off my lawn.

[9tubes]

I saw a couple of articles relevant to this discussion. There is a movement among people who call themselves journalists that objectivity is not favored. This story from WaPo comes with an appropriately-Orwellian headline. Note that this is not a fringe view. The story quotes:

Washington Post (both the current and past executive editor)
Associated Press (current executive editor)
San Francisco Chronicle
USA Today
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
CBS
Et al., my stomach was turning too much to list them all.


Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust

“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ity-diversity/

[Scott G.]

A related piece to the above.
The younger journo's have rediscovered what the old reporters always knew.
Go on Abe Books and get Ben Hechts' bio "Child of the Century"




https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...th-in-the-news

[caleb]

“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.”[/FONT]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ity-diversity/

This ^ is where prioritizing "lived experience" ends up. Knowledge, expertise, and even facts are reduced to perspective and power.

In college I had a philosophy professor who would dictate long quotations for us to copy down. One of the more memorable was from Nietzsche's On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense, which I can still almost quote verbatim 20 years later:

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

Welp, here we are. Seems like the closing rounds of identity power politics are at hand. The teams have been picked, and even the referees are joining the game.

[theflashunc]

There is a wide berth from what Downie is rightly advocating -- journalism based in fairness, accuracy and nonpartisanship -- vs the smarmy ideal of "objectivity" that demands ideas get equal airing no matter how garbage their origin or bad faith their intent.

It's how you end up with news organizations unwilling to call an attempted coup at the Capitol when it's being broadcast on national TV.

Good journalism ultimately isn't about taking sides for political points, but the pursuit of the above, and speaking truth to power. Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable, all that jazz.

Back to the OP's request:
I subscribe to the NYT digitally -- their tick-tocks in particular are some of the best around -- WSJ still has some of the best reporters in their newsroom anywhere, and longer-form stuff like the New Yorker.
For sports, the Athletic is pretty much a must-subscribe given their breadth and depth of coverage.

[bcm119]

I saw a couple of articles relevant to this discussion. There is a movement among people who call themselves journalists that objectivity is not favored. This story from WaPo comes with an appropriately-Orwellian headline. Note that this is not a fringe view. The story quotes:

Washington Post (both the current and past executive editor)
Associated Press (current executive editor)
San Francisco Chronicle
USA Today
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
CBS
Et al., my stomach was turning too much to list them all.


Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust

“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ity-diversity/

I saw Matt Taibbi post that exact quote on Twitter (a journalist who, imho, has veered in an unfortunately contrarian/Musky direction since his days of excellent long form stories in Rolling Stone) and after reading the whole article, I think it was taken somewhat out of context. People naturally think the opposite of objectivity in journalism is a scary thing, but I think there's more nuance to what the journalists actually meant. Objectivity can mean both-sidesing, as well as a lack of empathy and a human connection, both of which carry risks to the sustainability of good journalism. And the fact that the formerly great journalist Taibbi has found fertile ground in tweeting out-of-context quotes to rile up his budding contrarian base is sort of a sad meta commentary on journalism today. I think the 'move beyond objectivity' journalists may be right.

[thollandpe]

…Matt Taibbi… a journalist who, imho, has veered in an unfortunately contrarian/Musky direction…

The contrarian, Mr. Counter-Intuitive, he who dares to be the devil’s advocate? So often weak sauce and cheap goods, not the tenth man. That shit’s been rubbed into the ground. Get a youtube channel, Matt. Or buy a social media platform for an obscene amount of money.

[bigbill]

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.

[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…

[9tubes]

I saw Matt Taibbi post that exact quote on Twitter (a journalist who, imho, has veered in an unfortunately contrarian/Musky direction since his days of excellent long form stories in Rolling Stone) and after reading the whole article, I think it was taken somewhat out of context. People naturally think the opposite of objectivity in journalism is a scary thing, but I think there's more nuance to what the journalists actually meant. Objectivity can mean both-sidesing, as well as a lack of empathy and a human connection, both of which carry risks to the sustainability of good journalism. And the fact that the formerly great journalist Taibbi has found fertile ground in tweeting out-of-context quotes to rile up his budding contrarian base is sort of a sad meta commentary on journalism today. I think the 'move beyond objectivity' journalists may be right.

Before you claim that the quote was taken out of context, you should read the entire study. Downie was the executive editor of WaPo for 17 years and now is a professor at the Cronkite School of Journalism at U. of Ariz. He is reporting on a study he did with the former president of CBS News, who is also a professor from the Cronkite School. The study was funded by the Stanton Foundation (Frank Stanton, President of CBS).

The study title has a clue about whether that quote is out of context: "Beyond Objectivity: Producing Trustworthy News in Today’s Newsrooms"

In the study they interviewed 75 news executives and journalists. They report a trend of thought in todays newsrooms. The concept of "trustworthy" is now redefined as abandoning objectivity for what they call "mission-driven news organizations" meaning non-objective advocacy. This is dressed up in quite a bit of carefully-crafted prose that sounds a lot like "war is peace, ignorance is strength..." and now non-objectivity is truth.

The study is an unintentional damning report of modern major media.

[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.)