91–100 of 275 posts
Trying to understand politics by watching the Web stream go flowing by is pointless. You need high-quality, big picture stuff that requires effort to produce and consume. In the US, the NYTimes and the Washington Post are the best sources. To ensure you're exposure is 'fair and balanced' I would add the Economist for a more conservative, but not xenophobic or straight-up nonsensical viewpoint. It has the nice additio…
What about Wall Street Journal?
After finally cutting myself off of Twitter, my main source for news has been the Wikipedia current events portal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events It's as close as can possibly be to unbiased, only lists significant events, and it covers world news rather than only focusing on America. My secondary sources are reddit's /r/OutOfTheLoop, and the chyrons I see whenever I happen to walk by a TV that i…
Does anyone know if there is an RSS feed of the Current Events portal?
I try to avoid it. It's too much of a time sink and there's almost zero pieces of actionable information. I know it's offensive to claim it's merely entertainment but in concrete terms there's no material difference resulting from tuning into daily banter that's any different than watching some serial drama on television.
This is why we can't have nice things. Like democracy. But I also have to limit my exposure to political news. Otherwise I get too depressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was appalling about its coverage? Any sources or evidence? From what I understand they go to great lengths to remain as impartial as possible so curious what it is in particular you are referring to?
Mostly allowing themselves to be led around by unnamed "sources". Laura Kuenssberg's Twitter feed was particularly bad. Reporting on advance postal votes: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/11/bbc-denies-pol... Misreporting a punch, contradicted almost immediately by video: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/photo-... The official BBC line is that these are "mistakes", although they all see…
The BBC doesn’t have the power to subject people to interview by force. If he declines an interview which he is not obligated to give what should they have done?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about Wall Street Journal?
conservative bias
…is not by definition bad. Every publication publishes with bias (recognized and announced or not). Prejudice and unannounced (or not well-known) is what you want to avoid. Reading a "conservative bias" is a good thing, if only to better understand that point of view, regardless of if you agree or not.
Economist is very good. They are strongly liberal economics biased in their opinions, but they don't hide it . Their coverage of facts is usually excellent. It's obvious when they are opinionated and when on the other hand quoting expert opinion. I'm a bit on the left, politically, so I like reading 'what the other side is thinking' as well. As a bonus they publish bunch of letters from the readers, where they are cr…
This is what I very much appreciate about the Economist and why I subscribe.
Solid handling of the facts and well-announced bias, when present. They say "based on these facts, this is our editorial opinion" (almost literally), and I find it refreshing.
I try to avoid it. It's too much of a time sink and there's almost zero pieces of actionable information. I know it's offensive to claim it's merely entertainment but in concrete terms there's no material difference resulting from tuning into daily banter that's any different than watching some serial drama on television.
The way I see it, almost all news is completely irrelevant to my daily life, not actionable in any way, usually depressing, and often very inaccurate. It provides negative information - after consuming them, you end up dumber and more confused than you were before. So I stay away.
Together with that I like to read the free news site from my home country to keep up-to-date what's happening over there.