Internet news sources...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where does everyone go on the internet for their source of news? This is only for those that actually get the majority or a large portion of their news from the internet.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Could not be simpler. Google News. It is an unbiased collection of the tops news stories, by Google, and it is refreshed every five-ten minutes.

[Lord Winter]

BBC, CNN and the backroom.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.aldaily.com/

Has interesting articles from time to time.

[Beefy187]

I get it from Yahoo and Google. Sometimes ABC and BBC.

[Togakure]

The name of this publication will likely raise immediate doubt, but over many years I have found it to be a very good source of unbiased information. Before you judge, check it out:

http://www.csmonitor.com

I'm not religious. Not to be confused with Scientology.

[Lemur]

I hit a motley assortment of geeky and straight news sites in an erratic manner. On my reading list, in no particular order:

Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/)
The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/)
The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
The Economist (http://www.economist.com/)
Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/)
Politico (http://www.politico.com/)

And more that I would care to admit in public ...

Digg (http://digg.com/all)

-edit-

I used to be a regular Google News reader, but it's a little too random for my tastes. I also used to hit Drudge at least once a day, but he's lost his touch. I don't know how to explain it, but Matt Drudge just doesn't have the oomph he used to have. These days he seems to be behind the story instead of ahead of it.

[InsaneApache]

Let's see, I use the BBC, Guardian, Times, Telegraph and the Daily Mash. :smash:

On political stuff I like Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy and Labourhome.

You gotta try and keep a balance. :balloon2: :book:

[seireikhaan]

I win (http://www.theonion.com/content/index). Best news source period.

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

I win (http://www.theonion.com/content/index). Best news source period.
As we all know, that's America's Finest News Source™.

[Hooahguy]

the backroom, specifically the wierd news thread.

[desert]

Usually just MSN and AOL.

Fark.com (http://www.fark.com/)is also a good source of news.

I don't care to mention any other names. :skull:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, as for my favourite online news agency, it will have to be Reuters.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And more that I would care to admit in public ...

Digg (http://digg.com/all)



I get most of my news from Digg as well. Actually, I think once I saw your Digg profile, there was a comment on a page from "Lemur" so I thought maybe it was you.

[Thermal]

It's convenient and fast, accurate too, why get your news any other way? I'm not one to check the news often unless it relates to me or something I like though.

[Major Robert Dump]

all of the above plus drudgereport.com

[a completely inoffensive name]

I find that the drudge report is too biased toward the right and the huffington post is too biased for the left so I ignore both when they appear on Digg.

[Major Robert Dump]

Bias is good if you are getting both sides. It helps sort through the garbage. Drudge is just links for the most part, and it saves me time at searching

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bias is good if you are getting both sides. It helps sort through the garbage. Drudge is just links for the most part, and it saves me time at searching

No, absolutely not. Please don't try to defend bias in the media. Media should never, ever be biased in anyway. To say that I can achieve a balanced, well informed opinion from watching an hour of Keith Olbermann and an hour of Bill O' Reilly is ludicrous. Media is there to present the facts and the truth, nothing more. Bias in any way shape or form hurts the amount of actual information you receive and replaces it with entertainment or personal opinion. Since media has gotten so heavily biased you can tell just how crappy it has gotten, with pundits replacing journalists, hard pressing interviews replaced with "What's your view on the steroid situation in baseball Mr. President?", its absolutely horrible nowadays.

So no, I disagree with your statement MRD.

[Togakure]

No, absolutely not. Please don't try to defend bias in the media. Media should never, ever be biased in anyway. To say that I can achieve a balanced, well informed opinion from watching an hour of Keith Olbermann and an hour of Bill O' Reilly is ludicrous. Media is there to present the facts and the truth, nothing more. Bias in any way shape or form hurts the amount of actual information you receive and replaces it with entertainment or personal opinion. Since media has gotten so heavily biased you can tell just how crappy it has gotten, with pundits replacing journalists, hard pressing interviews replaced with "What's your view on the steroid situation in baseball Mr. President?", its absolutely horrible nowadays.

So no, I disagree with your statement MRD.
From an idealistic standpoint, I completely agree with you. But from a realistic point of view, media will be biased to some degree. Therefore, cross-referencing is vital.

[a completely inoffensive name]

From an idealistic standpoint, I completely agree with you. But from a realistic point of view, media will be biased to some degree. Therefore, cross-referencing is vital.

Some media always will, but to think that all media can be biased and that's ok, is not true at all. Journalism was once much, much better then it is nowadays a few decades ago. It seems like it has just degenerated into entertainment and bias since the 1980s.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's the difference between cross referencing:

Olberman--O'reilly

and

Mark Shields--David Brooks

[CountArach]

My home page is Google News, with a few tabs that are of interest to me. But mainly, I have quite a few RSS feeds, so I'll go through them:

Poll Bludger (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/) - Australian polling site with a lot of brilliant analysis of Australian elections at all levels (Except local).
Possum's Pollytics (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/) - Another Australian polling site, but there is also a great deal of sociology built into this with data used to show behavioural patterns. Fairly decent for economic news as well.
ABC - Government and Politics Tab (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/government-and-politics/) - The Australian ABC (Not the American one). I trust public broadcasting more than I do any corporate media and as such this is only natural for me. A bit more right-leaning than the rest of my stuff, but I suppose it is good to get a range of opinions.
FiveThirtyEight (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/government-and-politics/) - An American polling site this time, but one that has come to focus on data-based analysis of various political factors. Good for random musings.
Antony Green's Political Blog (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/) - Antony Green is a god for Australian political junkies.
Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/) - American polling site with a lot of links to good articles about polling and public opinion.
Larvatus Prodeo (http://larvatusprodeo.net/) - A Progressive Australian blog that is thoroughly researched and often funny.
Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald/) - I don't read all of his stuff, but Greenwald is an incredibly smart American Progressive with a strong view towards human rights. I don't think I've ever really disagreed with him strongly about anything.
New Matilda (http://newmatilda.com/) - Left-wing Australian political analysis. Lots of commentary on issues that mainstream-media don't like to touch.
DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/) - As if I didn't fit the Left-Wing stereotype enough... yes... I read DailyKos.
Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/) - Written by climate scientists, so I can always be sure that what they say is as close to the truth as I can get.
open Democracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/) - I can't recommend this website to people enough. A strong analysis of many countries around the world from a wide-range of expert opinions (Articles are often written by professors in certain fields, or those recognised as experts).
Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) - I figure that in these times of global uncertainty it is good to regularly read at least one economist's opinions and ideas. Why not go with a Nobel Prize winner?

Plus I follow a lot of links that these sites throw out.

As for non-internet news sources I have a subscription to the Sydney Morning Herald (The most widely-regarded newspaper in Australia) and I regularly buy the Guardian Weekly, which I recommend to people because it focuses on world news that you might not otherwise hear.

[Quietus]

Reddit (http://www.reddit.com)
&
Newser (http://www.newser.com)

Digg is horribly tainted by "power-diggers" and submissions are easily gamed.

edit: forgot Neatorama (http://www.neatorama.com) too

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Google News (as a portal more than anything), the BBC, the Times, the Telegraph, the Observer and occasionally (in the case of entertainment news mostly) the Mirror.

~:)

[PanzerJaeger]

Some media always will, but to think that all media can be biased and that's ok, is not true at all. Journalism was once much, much better then it is nowadays a few decades ago. It seems like it has just degenerated into entertainment and bias since the 1980s.

Orly? :inquisitive:

You're reminiscing on a time that never was.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Some media always will, but to think that all media can be biased and that's ok, is not true at all. Journalism was once much, much better then it is nowadays a few decades ago. It seems like it has just degenerated into entertainment and bias since the 1980s.

Let me present a quote from some time ago:
The newspaper that obstructs the law on a trivial pretext, for money's sake, is a dangerous enemy to
the public weal.
That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.

-Mark Twain

Have you heard of yellow journalism?

Anyways, my main site is the drudgereport.com
It just contains links to other news stories and precious few written by Mr. Drudge - I don't really think it's really biased.

Also, soundpolitics.com, which I started reading in the wake of the 2004 Washington state Governor's race. Focuses on the GOP in Washington state.

littlegreenfootballs.com, because I can't be bothered to spend a lot of my time reading about the 'struggle' against Islamism. This was the first site I came across, and I am disinclined to spend a great deal of time searching for or reading other blogs.

theagitator.com a libertarian site denouncing, primarily, the excesses of our legal system and police forces. Probably had the strongest influence on turning me from something like a law and order republican into what I am today.

I'll occasionally go to other sites, including democrat/progressive ones (kos, firedoglake, libertarian sites (CATO and Reason) and firearms ones. One of note is the Volokh conspiracy, a top notch law blog, focusing on constitutional issues.


Paul Krugman - I figure that in these times of global uncertainty it is good to regularly read at least one economist's opinions and ideas. Why not go with a Nobel Prize winner?

For your own sake, CA, you should try out some blog written by an economist who doesn't tend to agree with your own worldview. Krugman did some fine work in the area he won his Nobel prize for, but he doesn't blog about that. His articles also don't represent the views of most economists, so you're not really getting a balanced view of economics. I'm not saying stop reading him, just read others in addition :beam:

Here's some I found:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/
More about the hidden economics in everyday life instead of politics or the like, and you know it isn't a conservative blog when one post starts this way:

Dear Secretary Geithner,

I’ve been out of touch. Sorry. I spent the last month on grand jury duty, putting Manhattan’s poor minorities behind bars. I needed a little time to recover.

This one:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
by an economics professor at Harvard, also seems (from a brief perusal) to have good coverage of today's events and their relationship to economic fundamentals.

CR

[CountArach]

For your own sake, CA, you should try out some blog written by an economist who doesn't tend to agree with your own worldview. Krugman did some fine work in the area he won his Nobel prize for, but he doesn't blog about that. His articles also don't represent the views of most economists, so you're not really getting a balanced view of economics. I'm not saying stop reading him, just read others in addition :beam:
Alright I've trimmed down the name of some of my RSS feeds to include an Australian source (http://economics.com.au/) on the economy. Not exactly a raving bunch of left-wingers when they say (http://economics.com.au/?p=2946):

[Australian Treasurer] Swan’s reply was reassuring in its economic liberalism. Swan said that the guarantees and off-shoring of jobs were unrelated issues, and he only urged banks to look after their employees.

So far so good.
Also The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/), just to balance out the rightward shift of my Toolbar :laugh4: :wink:

Anyways, my main site is the drudgereport.com
It just contains links to other news stories and precious few written by Mr. Drudge - I don't really think it's really biased.
I disagree, but this is the Frontroom so I would like to stay out of any debates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Have you heard of yellow journalism?

I believe he was referring to history a little more recent than that.

I wasn't alive back then so I couldn't say...but this was in the news recently:


Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude -- is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?

Compare with:


Richard Nixon is gone now and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing--a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that I know Iwill go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."


Anyways, my main site is the drudgereport.com
It just contains links to other news stories and precious few written by Mr. Drudge - I don't really think it's really biased.

There can be bias in what stories are linked to and what versions are linked to--just look at digg, it's entirely far left articles. "Bush on trial for war crimes!!!!!!!" etc...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Orly? :inquisitive:

You're reminiscing on a time that never was.

Maybe there was never a time of perfect, unbiased journalism but where exactly is the emerging Edward R. Murrow's, Carl Bernstein's and Bob Woodward's who actually dig deep and try to report the accurate facts? It seems like all the good reporters are slowly disappearing and replaced by talking pundits.

[Lemur]

Anyways, my main site is the drudgereport.com
It just contains links to other news stories and precious few written by Mr. Drudge - I don't really think it's really biased.
I kinda know Matt Drudge, and I seriously doubt he would agree with you. He has a very defined and marketable bias—he's ridden it all the way to the bank. I think DR makes more money than the next ten most popular blogs combined.

Matt has his market and he knows how to work it. I just think he's a bit off right now. He hasn't broken a major story in what seems like a long time, and he didn't drive the media coverage in '08 the way he has in other Presidential elections. No big deal, however, Matt is set for life, money-wise.

[PanzerJaeger]

Maybe there was never a time of perfect, unbiased journalism but where exactly is the emerging Edward R. Murrow's, Carl Bernstein's and Bob Woodward's who actually dig deep and try to report the accurate facts? It seems like all the good reporters are slowly disappearing and replaced by talking pundits.

Sure, but at least we know they're biased from the outset.

Compared to today, the average person in the 80s had relatively few sources of news, and hardly any ways to verify what they were being told. They either trusted Dan Rather, or they didn't; and believe me, the networks abused this trust on a regular basis. I don't want to delve into politics as this is not the Backroom, so I'll just highlight the 60 Minutes piece about "unintended acceleration" that almost forced Audi out of the United States and so damaged their sales that they still haven't caught up - all pure fabrication. The car's pedals were simply closer together than Americans were used to. 60 Minutes rigged up a car and everything.

These days, just like those days, the news media is still made up of 95% agenda/and/or/profit-driven ideologues and 5% honest and objective journalists. You can still find a few Murrow-types on TV, but your best bet is on the internet.

Some may disagree, but I believe the internet has had an amazingly positive effect on journalism. Sure punditry has grown in popularity in the past few years, but for every Olbermann, there is a Media Research Center, and for every Bill O'reilly there's a DailyKos, hanging on every word that’s said. These days everything those guys say is parsed, fact checked ad nauseam, and criticized. In fact, almost everything any "person of interest" says - whether it be a politician, a pundit, or even a celebrity, is run through the blogosphere. This has both made journalists far more focused on fact checking and much more readily open about stating what is fact and what is their opinion. More importantly, the average Joe can go on the internet in the comfort of his own home and fact check new stories within seconds of hearing them. If Keith Olbermann has ever convinced you of anything, you're just being intellectually lazy.

Look at what happened to poor old Dan Rather when he tried to pull some 80s BS with a story full of innuendo, misquotes, and unsubstantiated facts. The internet took him down.. hard.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sure, but at least we know they're biased from the outset.

Compared to today, the average person in the 80s had relatively few sources of news, and hardly any ways to verify what they were being told. They either trusted Dan Rather, or they didn't; and believe me, the networks abused this trust on a regular basis. I don't want to delve into politics as this is not the Backroom, so I'll just highlight the 60 Minutes piece about "unintended acceleration" that almost forced Audi out of the United States and so damaged their sales that they still haven't caught up - all pure fabrication. The car's pedals were simply closer together than Americans were used to. 60 Minutes rigged up a car and everything.

These days, just like those days, the news media is still made up of 95% agenda/and/or/profit-driven ideologues and 5% honest and objective journalists. You can still find a few Murrow-types on TV, but your best bet is on the internet.

Some may disagree, but I believe the internet has had an amazingly positive effect on journalism. Sure punditry has grown in popularity in the past few years, but for every Olbermann, there is a Media Research Center, and for every Bill O'reilly there's a DailyKos, hanging on every word that’s said. These days everything those guys say is parsed, fact checked ad nauseam, and criticized. In fact, almost everything any "person of interest" says - whether it be a politician, a pundit, or even a celebrity, is run through the blogosphere. This has both made journalists far more focused on fact checking and much more readily open about stating what is fact and what is their opinion. More importantly, the average Joe can go on the internet in the comfort of his own home and fact check new stories within seconds of hearing them. If Keith Olbermann has ever convinced you of anything, you're just being intellectually lazy.

Look at what happened to poor old Dan Rather when he tried to pull some 80s BS with a story full of innuendo, misquotes, and unsubstantiated facts. The internet took him down.. hard.

Maybe...but the internet these days is under siege by companies trying to filter it to stop piracy, governments trying to filter it to stop illegal websites. If everyone is gaining a hand in how the internet is run and presented except for the people, how long will it be before even the internet is reduced to nothing but a more convenient way to listen to what your favorite pundit says?

"The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue."-Edward R. Murrow

[PanzerJaeger]

Maybe...but the internet these days is under siege by companies trying to filter it to stop piracy, governments trying to filter it to stop illegal websites. If everyone is gaining a hand in how the internet is run and presented except for the people, how long will it be before even the internet is reduced to nothing but a more convenient way to listen to what your favorite pundit says?

"The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue."-Edward R. Murrow

Completely agree. We should all be more active in the fight to keep the internet an open forum. No amount of pedos, Nigerian scams, or viagra spam outweigh its value in furthering human knowledge.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh blast. I forgot this was in the frontroom. Kindly disregard all of my more political commentary.

CR

[Xiahou]

The only "news" site I'm sure to visit pretty much daily is Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/)(it's my homepage). They list headlines from many different news outlets and serve as a nice jumping off point for me. I'll see headlines that grab my interest, read the stories, and then search around afterward if I need more information.

Oh, that and nintendo.joystiq.com (http://nintendo.joystiq.com) :2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

Completely agree. We should all be more active in the fight to keep the internet an open forum. No amount of pedos, Nigerian scams, or viagra spam outweigh its value in furthering human knowledge.

I think it's the other way around.