Sorry if this is the wrong forum.
I'd like to support independent journalism that isn't controlled by Emperor Murdoch. Which publication do you recommend?
I'm looking at the Guardian at the moment but I'm open to suggestions.
Which Independent News Source Should I Subscribe to?
JoJoker on 07/12/2019 - 15:29
Comments
Because it implies that there are exactly two sides, each giving you half the picture and adding up to a whole truth.
But if the reality is that the two news sources you read are both lazy/invested in their own half-truths without any facts supporting them, then reading them both isn't sufficient to get a clear picture of what's going on.
There are exactly 3 versions to any story. Your version, my version, and the truth.
Today, we live in a world where one should not read western newspapers.
All stories are simplistic, crude and propagandistic.
The public is being brainwashed with "Narrative Treads" devised, and controlled
by the Govt, in order to sway popular opinion toward "DUTTON'S" draconian state.We are witnessing this time and again, be it FAKE White Helmets, unbelievable Epstein FAKE suicide,
FAKE Russian poisoning, and FAKE weapons of mass destruction, just for starters.You would be financing this FAKE westernised propaganda medium… don't do it.
The New Daily is pretty decent. Just take note that they're owned by industry super funds.
the onion
allsides.com is a good US site. Shame there is no Australian equivalent as this is US-centric.
Quick skim and looks pretty good, here's there chart on media bias
Excellent chart
Reuters is my default go to for world news.
I can't believe nobody mentioned Reuters before this point!
Reuters is where they other outlets get the raw stories before the "spin" them!
I would go with…
- ABC - https://www.abc.net.au/news/
- The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/
- Crikey - https://www.crikey.com.au/ (if you want Aussie policial news)
You may want to consider:
- DW - https://www.dw.com/ (have heard some of their stuff on the radio and it's been very good)
- Aljazeera - https://www.aljazeera.com/ (I'm honestly not too sure how independent they are, but they do seem to have good coverage and articles)
- Don't forget about the BBC as well (https://www.bbc.com/)
+1 ABC and the Guardian. A bit left leaning but at least aimed at mature adults.
"a bit"
Lol.
If you want a more centrist view ignore every single one of the above list, especially the top three which are extremist left wing drivel with the ABC being a bit more to the centre, mainly it's radio broadcasts, than the other two.
These are all left wing sites (ABC, SBS, BBC, The Guardian).
Apparently reality has a left wing bias.
The Guardian. The news is balanced and there is an international perspective.
Otherwise The Saturday Paper or New Matilda.
The Guardian is centre left, still decent though.
Twitter. No wait I'm serious. Build & actively maintain a selection of individuals & organisations that provide information from different perspectives. You soon get a feel for how things can and do get distorted and spun, especially if you can access actual source material (which is often easy to find). But there are many individuals that provide thoughtful commentary on a range of subjects - eg Brian Cox (physicist). When you get a good balance & range you'll be able to keep abreast of key things that interest you with 10-15 minutes of enjoyable swiping each day. Also there's a level of "straight from the horses mouth" thats immediate & appealing.
Axios also seems pretty balanced to me & Kialo is great for constructive review of disparate views.
Journalism is a joke these days. Most news sources mainstream or not have some sort of bias in them.
People forgot that being human has ingrained biases, so not hard to imagine that all writings have some sort of bias, it’s just some are far more critical of their own views and therefore more balanced than others.
I've found SBS news to be fairly unbiased and to the point. They tend to just give you the facts and leave emotion out of it.
Government funding means they don't have to succumb to click bait articles or pander to any kind of base just to stay alive like private ones do.
SBS news tends to have quite a left wing agenda based on the types of stories they choose to run. It's quite common to see more positive articles about LGBTQIA issues as well as colour pieces on migrants in Australia. The latter is quite understandable as SBS's mission is to run foreign language content that other channels ignore.
Being positive and inclusive is a left wing agenda?
Doesn't paint a good picture for people who are themselves as right leaning.
Critiquing an opposing viewpoint is negative and bigoted?
Doesn't paint a good picture for people who are left leaning.
Wait what? LGBTQIA is a left vs right issue? I thought it was religious vs not. Are you saying there aren't right wing gay people?
Having a quick look at my Facebook seems to indicate most in the 45-65 age bracket rely on memes for information.
I don't think there is any tbh, I think there are people who try but inevitably lean left or right.
Imo the best bet is to go for people who state the facts as they are at the time of publishing then their opinion, slightly left-leaning ones then slightly right-leaning ones.
Back in the day ABC used to be about facts and just reporting the news. Now it's about opinions and political activisim. It's sad what it has become.
Totally agree, I used to watch it for facts but started noticing more and more preaching of opinion vs informing of facts.
In my opinion its important to read/watch all spectrums of news because of the ingrained political biases each have. Keeping up with conservative Murdoch publications is just as important as reading/watching lefty ABC or Guardian news.
It's important we consume a broad spectrum to be able to make our own assessments and form our own opinions.
I subscribe to The Economist. It's amazing and very reliable.
Reliably drifting into irrelevance. The quality of that publication has gone down a looooooong way over the past several years.
The New Daily. It’s on-line.
As opposed to all the others…?
If the ABC seems Left-leaning to you (anyone), I would suggest it's actually reality that's Left-leaning from your perspective, and the ABC are simply reporting truths that are uncomfortable/jarring for you.
For examples of truly Left-leaning media, compare and contrast with Vox or Huffington Post
overton window has gone right out the door
lol typical leftie response. "Our news isn't biased, you're just a Nazi".
get revved up buddy but not past 4000rpm
Surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier
ABC news is legally mandated to give politically neutral/balanced coverage.
The Conversation provides excellent articles written by subject area experts.
Edit: found this chart which may be of help (not sure of provenance) https://i.imgur.com/INOCxxA.jpg
ABC News and The Conversation claiming to be unbiased?????? You're joking right. Both are very left leaning despite their legal mandate in the case of the ABC.
The conversation has a bit of a lefty tendancy, sure. Academics in general trend left. They stick to matters which they are qualified to comment on though, and write excellent articles with links to studies etc. I'm not aware of a mildly-right-wing equivalent. Would be happy to have one recommended.
Can you link me some data showing left-wing bias in the ABC?
This is the only data I could find, which seems to show they're as close to neutral as practical (note: possible pro-coalition bias! but I don't think its significant) https://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/austr…
I posit that it's more likely your perspective is off-centre so you perceive neutrality as 'left'.
Here's an ABC story about having your second child:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-08/the-things-no-one-tel…
<q> As a result, parents find that their mental and physical health takes a big hit with two kids thanks to the effect of chronic stress.
And that's especially true for women in cisgendered, straight relationships, where both partners tend to slot, unconsciously or otherwise, into traditional carer/earner roles.
(And if you want to depress yourself about the ways which Australia's parental leave system and work culture subtly but forcefully discourages men from choosing to be more hands-on parents, then you should pore over Annabel Crabb's recent Quarterly Essay, 'Men At Work': the patriarchy does a hell of a number on dudes as well, it turns out.) </q>
The article basically says having a second child is hard, but being in a straight relationship makes it worse due to the traditional patriarchy, yet there is no discussion about about trans/bi/gay etc relationships.
@TheOtherLeft: That's an anecdote, one sample. Not data.
I'm sure you could find an opinion piece (which this is clearly identified as) with a conservative slant on there too.
yet there is no discussion about about trans/bi/gay etc relationships
And if they were discussed in more detail (instead of just as a point of comparison), would that make the article more or less 'lefty' in your opinion?
@TheOtherLeft: Username seems appropriate ;)
I don't have a strong political leaning (according to those compass tests), but I fail to see how this article is particularly left leaning?
To me it's just saying that having 2 kids is harder than just 1, because you're sleep deprived for longer, shit costs more, etc. Which sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps you're just reading into it too much?
But the main message in all of this is for any parent of a new baby who's feeling that they're not coping the way they should be: you're right to feel stressed and exhausted, because kids are stressful and exhausting.
That's what they're saying apparently. Kind of a boring article to me, but doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda.
Can you link me some data showing left-wing bias in the ABC?
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias
ABC is left wing. This is complete denial. If they used taxpayer money and leaned RIGHT, there would be mass hysteria and triggering meltdowns all over.
@abuch47: Sure you can, it's called error since they both have the same name. Not a panty snatcher. Here's a a bias check for Aussie BC
@SlavOz: Not having a good day, are you.
To quote you so far:
lol typical leftie response. "Our news isn't biased, you're just a Nazi".
as a response to a comment that never mentioned or referenced Nazism or anything like it in any way
ABC is left wing. This is complete denial. If they used taxpayer money and leaned RIGHT, there would be mass hysteria and triggering meltdowns all over.
and links to a source about American ABC
Here's a a bias check for Aussie BC
You didn't read the article there either did you. The indicator falls between Left-Centre and Centre (they call it Least Biased, but that's not necessarily true either). They also rate the ABC High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and being a certified fact checker.
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Seriously? Try and think before you type.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
By that analogy, the government must be getting biased reporting in their favour as the government pays for them. But the current government is right-wing. Oops!
If you want to understand a serious issue you need to take the time to learn about it yourself instead of relying on other people to collaborate facts for you.
read verified data about certain events or topics
Interesting. You believe in reading. I suggest you take you own advice…
ABC has had Murdoch and other plants for decades. Also they will bow to political pressure time and time again so they can get interviews ect. Still better than nothing but certainly with bias and undertone.
ABC has been completely neutered by the Lib government defunding them anytime they report on something they don't like.
The ABC might be "left leaning" but it cannot report on any issues which seriously damage the governments credibility or else it risks more defunding. It's become pretty worthless.
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
Maybe if they did some legitimate journalism they wouldn't need money from the government.
Any news organization that receives government funding should be a red flag. It's basically like when video game companies pay reviewers. Does anyone really expect a truthful analysis?
Maybe taking money from the government, rather than private companies, is the only way to be sure they can truthfully report on matters which might be detrimental to said companies? I mean, that's kinda the point you're making, except you seem to have a weird interpretation where the ABC provides anti-government coverage by virtue of receiving money from the government??
As a public news agency (note: distinct from state news agency like the old Pravda), I actually want them to be critical against whoever is in power, to hold them to account.
@abb: Private companies and people will never match the government when it comes to scandals, cover-ups and bad agendas. If a news agency is going to receive money from anyone, I'd much rather it's private corporations, who's only goal is usually to get rich. We've seen what happens when governments start controlling the media and get their way.
Sure the ABC is critical of the government already but as others have pointed out, this continues to lead to fund cuts. How long until ABC gets the message and decides to only report on what the government wants? It's a dangerous game.
@SlavOz: Political ideology is driving the funding cuts, not critical stories. Funnily enough the same political ideology would be very happy if all news media were controlled by big business (and therefore critical of any politician who is not sufficiently pro-big-business), as you apparently would be. I would not.
For many decades we had a strong independent ABC. We can continue to do so.
@abb: I'm not saying I would be happy with big business controlling the media, just that it's a much, much safer option than having the government control it. Big business has never been responsible for oppression or tyranny.
At the end of the day, news outlets rely on money to survive and thrive. The money has to come from somewhere.
Haha no wonder ABC is not responding to my enquiry when I approach them about making a public interest disclosure.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Note that this site leans slightly to the left, so keep that in mind whenever you visit.Russia today and Sputnik
Wikipedia still has a lot of bias. A short list, from a bias POV. https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
Conservapedia, on the other hand, is pure objective fact with no partisan agenda at all?
"from a bias POV" FFS
@pformag: Sorry I read that as "looking at wikipedia with the intent to assess bias", rather than "an assessment from a biased source".
Seems decent to me:
"Bestiality/zoophilia
Domestic sheep
See Wikipedia on bestialityAs of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on zoophilia/bestiality has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "Zoophilia and the law" article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.[29]"
If you cite The Bolt Report as a credible source of "alternative facts" on Climate Change, why not go the whole hog an provide links to Anti-vax and Flat-earth websites while you're at it?
Literally pedophile apologists, can't understand why anyone would want to associate with them.
I find it best to read from both sides. If you only read news from 1 or 2 sources, then you will get only those viewpoints.
I do find for international news, AP News and Reuters tend to be more center.
Reddit - its also a great source, sign up to both sides and you can get the same story told from completely different angles. r/politics is a complete waste of time, unless you love Trump Bashing 24/7
I pay to support https://www.michaelwest.com.au/ - but don't tend to read it first thing in the morning or the outrage upsets my rice bubbles
but for the story behind the latest profit making corruption, it's a whole different world.
I believe Michael West used to work for Murdoch, before he longer fit that culture.
He's hilarious and I watch a lot of his videos. But he is definitely biased and panders to a base.
Bwahahaha
Not sure how accurate this chart reflects reality. The comments in this thread may be worth reading.
Australia Media Bias Chart
02 Jul 2018
https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/8vgokb/australia…FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media ownership concentration one of the highest in the world?
December 12, 2016 3.07pm AEDT
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of…
me grandma is quite independent
Definitely New York Times. There is a slight liberal bias but highly factual with well known reporters and fact checking
Noo Yawk Times?
Nu Yawk Thames
Why watch any mainstream media? It’s all biased and 95% of it is owned by 6 companies.
I think your best bet are a variety of independent left and right YouTubers like Tim Pool, Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson. Stephan Molyneux is also good (but considered right).
You can't get any more independent than viewer/Patreon funded YouTubers.
Lots of great ones to choose from.
I subscribe to SMH on iPhone private browser
I'd recommend The Guardian, The Conversation, Reuters and The Associated Press
Triggernometry, conservative leaning but relatively non partisan political viewpoint interviews.
/r/the_donald
"This community is quarantined" lol
Don’t trust any source as independent, they’re all biased. Have some media intelligence and understand the bias of the writers/papers and read any source for your news.
Don't read any news. Spend the time reading and learning. You'll save yourself from the subscribed depression of the world.
Wikipedia has a current events page to glaze over if you must know whose killing who.
Independent News Sources is a bit of a broad term and like other have said, is a bit of an oxymoron. Personally I go
Internationally, the following news sources are considered extremely reliable and unbiased:
- AFP
- Associated Press
- Reuters
- BBCIn addition, I also pay credence to:
- Bloomberg
- PBS
- CBS
- Wall Street Journal
- NBC NewsOf course, you'll likely get some give-or take on either side of total neutrality. Reuters, AP, AFP and BBC use extremely dry language and try to give a proportionally representative perspective or equally balanced perspective on many sides of a debate if they decide to explore a topic beyond just reporting events. They are also the eminent sources for on-the-ground journalism and fact-finding, which is why you'll generally see them in the byline of publications and news broadcasts around the world. They will do pieces on the plights of humans in conflict zones or poverty, but it is made fairly clear that this is not factual reporting but rather a series of stories meant to illustrate the human impact of an issue.
Bloomberg, PBS, WSJ and NBC news are obviously heavily focused on domestic US news and international news pertaining to the United States. They lightly skew to either side of non-partisanship but generally provide unbiased commentary or reporting of events and issues. You can trust these to deliver astute commentary.
Wall Street Journal? edit: nvm still murdoch