Decent news sources

[Pladio]

Possibly this is an economic issue rather than a social one? Capitalism drives the system toward monopoly until such time as it becomes so top heavy that it collapses, right? So, there's been quite the consolidation in the media over the past few decades. You're down to a handful of major players now in traditional media. You throw in the pressure of the rise of electronic media plus the discarding of the facade of neutrality and the top of the pyramid is really starting to teeter. The problem to me seems to be the high barrier to entry- the cost to put together a decent news source (not just a regurgitator) is insanely high. So as the top crumbles, there's not a new crop of start-ups filling in the gaps from the bottom to build a new pyramid. So we're stuck in no man's land, with something nobody likes/trusts but no serious alternatives to embrace.

You almost need non-profit news. Of course, around these parts non-profit generally equals government run, which obviously doesn't work for media.

I think reading news from different countries does help - rather than just from one place - as the consolidation you rightly speak of is mostly within specific countries.

 

[SveNitoR]

I have double-checked but the newspaper and their associated websites don't have an English version, so you'll have to learn French. Or you may be able to understand the Dutch version or at least get a good idea, perhaps?

Anyway, a small and relatively uninteresting country so I don't think it's worth it.

Google translate, my friend, Google translate

 

[SveNitoR]

I think reading news from different countries does help - rather than just from one place - as the consolidation you rightly speak of is mostly within specific countries.

Yeah, that's why I started this thread. When I read different sources I get different perspectives on the same issue. Sometimes it gives me nothing, and sometimes it is eye opening. Mostly somewhere in the middle.

My biggest issue with this, is that it is hard to know what sources are likely to be good enough.

 

[DArtagnan]

To me, it's not that I inherently don't trust news sources - it's that I'm aware of human nature and what happens to it when subjected to, say, capitalism and an incentive-based reward structure.

So, I can't really trust them - but I sometimes do trust them to an extent. As in, I assume it's probably true until I hear otherwise.

For that reason, I can enjoy certain outlets - like a few YT channels - but I'm also very well aware of how vulnerable they are to monetary corruption, and - potentially worse - their own highly biased nature.

So, I don't think of any news source as "good" in a static way - because they change over time, and it will all depend on the object of the news. Some news might seem more reliable - because there's no obvious "side" to take or reward to be had by presenting it in a particular light.

What I do instead is to accept that I simply can't rely on what I'm hearing or reading - but I will invest based on how many outlets are saying similar things, and - especially - based on how much sense it makes according to my own world view.

Like most people, I tell myself that I'm pretty good at being objective - and I have a lot more faith in my own understanding of human nature than some stranger on a news outlet that's clearly interpreting what may or may not be factual.

With all that said, I do have slightly more faith in local news here in Denmark - because we're not quite as obviously saturated in corruption based on a flatter social hierarchy.

That's not to say there's no bias or anything ridiculously implausible like that - I just think the "good ones" are somewhat less prone to outright corruption bias.

So, stuff like the publicly funded dr.dk is good - but the spectacle shit like ekstrabladet.dk I consider terrible. Some Danes would disagree, though - and consider ekstrabladet "brave" for revealing all kinds of scandals.

 

[Qayto]

I read the Guardian daily, I guess it's the closest alignment to my values, but even as a soft Lefty, I can understand why some articles invite the eye rolling. I often see this as a class thing where the middle class don't quite understand the working classes. I do deliberately push myself to read other views and will scan the more right wing and tabloid press. I thought the UK tabloids were far better than the non-tabloid press at the beginning of the pandemic giving sound, practical and realistic advice, rather than burying the essential facts under an avalanch of political blame seeking.

I do wince when Opinion is presented as fact or facts are presented without citation. I respect the Financial Times (UK) but can't afford it other than the occasional free articles. I like the BBC but think they get in a mess when they try to present "balance". We have Channel 4 which can sometimes feel braver than the BBC but I suspect some would see it as having a Left wing bias.

And of course I read RPGwatch and have picked up a couple of views that gave me pause to question my stance. I do follow the odd links to American newspapers and articles.

 

[Ripper]

I read the Guardian daily, I guess it's the closest alignment to my values, but even as a soft Lefty, I can understand why some articles invite the eye rolling. I often see this as a class thing where the middle class don't quite understand the working classes. I do deliberately push myself to read other views and will scan the more right wing and tabloid press. I thought the UK tabloids were far better than the non-tabloid press at the beginning of the pandemic giving sound, practical and realistic advice, rather than burying the essential facts under an avalanch of political blame seeking.

I do wince when Opinion is presented as fact or facts are presented without citation. I respect the Financial Times (UK) but can't afford it other than the occasional free articles. I like the BBC but think they get in a mess when they try to present "balance". We have Channel 4 which can sometimes feel braver than the BBC but I suspect some would see it as having a Left wing bias.

And of course I read RPGwatch and have picked up a couple of views that gave me pause to question my stance. I do follow the odd links to American newspapers and articles.

Yes, I wouldn't say all the tabloids are gutter press, but some I think definitely are. I particularly dislike those that do reactionary moralising to stoke outrage, while the next page is photos of a woman taken with a telephoto lens from a bush, and commenting on her cellulite. When they actually do something useful, like Covid information, they kind of give away their true level of competence.

The FT is another good one, and The Economist. I do think that publications that are for the audience that essentially runs the show tend to be good sources of information.

I agree with you that the BBC sometimes has a problematic approach to presenting balance, but I think that's because they have to be very careful trying to appease everyone, because the existence of their unique status is contentious. Personally, I can see the issues with the Beeb, but they can't please everyone all the time. I would stand up for them, because I think we'd be worse off as a country without them.

 

[Ripper]

Possibly this is an economic issue rather than a social one? Capitalism drives the system toward monopoly until such time as it becomes so top heavy that it collapses, right? So, there's been quite the consolidation in the media over the past few decades. You're down to a handful of major players now in traditional media. You throw in the pressure of the rise of electronic media plus the discarding of the facade of neutrality and the top of the pyramid is really starting to teeter. The problem to me seems to be the high barrier to entry- the cost to put together a decent news source (not just a regurgitator) is insanely high. So as the top crumbles, there's not a new crop of start-ups filling in the gaps from the bottom to build a new pyramid. So we're stuck in no man's land, with something nobody likes/trusts but no serious alternatives to embrace.

You almost need non-profit news. Of course, around these parts non-profit generally equals government run, which obviously doesn't work for media.

Yes, as I was just mentioning to Qayto, the BBC is an interesting case because it's a publicly-owned non-profit required to maintain its independence... but it's funded by a licence fee that the state mandates. So, there are credible objections, but at the same time I think that public service nature is tangible, and has a great value in itself.

I was interested to see what you say about the problem of consolidated control (and all that comes with it) in the media market. I agree, and, not to go off on too much of a tangent, but for me that's the issue with our entire system - fine in theory, but things break down at the top of the system, making it very much not as advertised.

 

[Carnifex]

I think the way I function is I stick with writers/journalists that I know, trust, and enjoy. Ones like Reich, Will, and a few others, people that have proven their collective skills over the decades.

 

[dteowner]

Yes, as I was just mentioning to Qayto, the BBC is an interesting case because it's a publicly-owned non-profit required to maintain its independence... but it's funded by a licence fee that the state mandates. So, there are credible objections, but at the same time I think that public service nature is tangible, and has a great value in itself.

I was interested to see what you say about the problem of consolidated control (and all that comes with it) in the media market. I agree, and, not to go off on too much of a tangent, but for me that's the issue with our entire system - fine in theory, but things break down at the top of the system, making it very much not as advertised.

The BBC might be a fairly good model to address the issue. The US just doesn't do that sort of thing well. We've got PBS, but they're predominately funded at the whim of the government as an arts endeavor so they're mindful not to bite the hand that feeds it. I was more poking at a Pravda model, but I think the point still holds up at both ends of the spectrum.

As for the control thing, I'd say my "complaints" are more systemic but certainly fit very well to the situation in media. Unbridled capitalism is nice in theory but it's simply too easy to dick with in the current environment. The drive toward monopoly is all well and good (basically the commercial equivalent of social darwinism that I'm chummy with) as long as it's possible for someone to come along with a better mousetrap. You've got the government putting their thumb on the scale with bureaucracy and excessive regulations, but it's that high cost of market entry that really hurts. Not only does that make it impractical for some wonk to build the better mousetrap in his garage, but the sources of venture capital necessary to get around it are largely the same rich people that already own the monopolies in some manner or another, meaning they have conflicting interests.

While I'm not one of those morons ranting about "10 Jews that own the whole world", I do think the centralization of capital (which I tend to inaccurately shorthand as "the stock market") has had a very negative effect on the "economic life cycle". It allows monopolies (again, inaccurate shorthand for top-heavy consolidated industries) to survive longer than they should. And to bring the show all the way back around, the media serves as a very clear case study of what goes wrong.

 

[Zloth]

We've got PBS, but they're predominately funded at the whim of the government as an arts endeavor so they're mindful not to bite the hand that feeds it.

Eh? They do bite the hand that feeds it, and that hand isn't feeding it so much anymore. I think that's even more true with National Public Radio. States and local governments might send money over, depending on the location. State sponsored colleges might give them funding.

They bite the corporate hands, too. Those are even more noticeable, because any mention of a corporate sponsor in a story, whether positive or negative, gets a mention about the sponsorship. Full discloser and all that. (And they do it Every. Single. Time. Gets pretty annoying when Facebook gets in trouble and dominates the news cycle.)

I think the majority of their funding comes from those thrice damned pledge drives, though. If they are going to have a monetary weakness, it would be scaring off people that have the cash and desire to pay make donations.

Oh! It's midnight here, time for BBC!

 

[Drithius]

Aljazeera.com

Not conservative. Not liberal. Just balanced reporting for anyone not wanting to bury their head in American sand. Though I'll sometimes go to Reuters to cross-reference perspectives.

 

[Pladio]

Aljazeera.com

Not conservative. Not liberal. Just balanced reporting for anyone not wanting to bury their head in American sand. Though I'll sometimes go to Reuters to cross-reference perspectives.

I think it's alright for anything news, but don't read their opinion pieces as they're very biased against all the countries the country is against...

 

[SveNitoR]

I think it's alright for anything news, but don't read their opinion pieces as they're very biased against all the countries the country is against...

Yeah, I agree. During the most active part of the war in Syria, I read quite some news from them.

I've got a brother in law who's from Syria. I should ask him what news sources he consider decent. I know he's sceptic on any news anywhere, due to growing up in a dictatorship of utter corruption, but he talks about news, so he must get them from somewhere.