Are There Any GOOD Internet News Sites?
- Thread starter randelli
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I'm a BBC man myself though over the years have noticed their heavily biased reporting to be getting worse to make me want to find a new news source.
Regards,
Jay.
Regards,
Jay.
Raw Story, Bill Moyers, Thom Hartman, Lee Camp, Digby, Buzzflash, Mother Jones, Alternet, Talking Points Memo.
By popularity, not honesty or accuracy.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/political-websites
Personally, I'll take the Huffington Post.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/political-websites
Personally, I'll take the Huffington Post.
"Are There Any GOOD Internet News Sites?"
What is your definition of "...GOOD..."? Sadly, today it has become a relative term which is predicated upon one's world view.
Sadder still is the fact that the "mainstream" media seems wedded to an idea once propounded by the late Joseph Goebbels who stated, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." Herr Goebbels also stated a corollary to this which said, in essence, that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the "truth."
What is your definition of "...GOOD..."? Sadly, today it has become a relative term which is predicated upon one's world view.
Sadder still is the fact that the "mainstream" media seems wedded to an idea once propounded by the late Joseph Goebbels who stated, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." Herr Goebbels also stated a corollary to this which said, in essence, that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the "truth."
I have a biased and jaded view of the mainstream media. From 1975 - 1993, I worked as a Public Affairs specialist and had day-today contact with the news media in Seattle, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Miami and New York City. I covered such newsworthy events as hurricanes, the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, drug enforcement operations off the coast of South Florida, the Liberty Weekend Celebration in New York in 1986, The summit meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev in Dec. 1988 and many others. I had good personal relationships with people at the major networks and major newspapers and magazines nationwide. When I retired from that life, I had job offers from several of them.
While I don't deal with the media now, I do still read, watch and listen to the media and it is not as "balanced" now as it was back in the 1980s. Hell, it's not even as good as it was back in the mid-70s when the media trusted absolutely no one connected to the government. CNN used to be a good source of news, but there are reasons why there are some who now refer to it as the Communist News Network now. We used to blame it on Jane Fonda but I have some friends who now claim it should be the Clinton News Network.
New York Times? It's not even a shadow of its former self. Why? Because instead of being a conservative, middle of the road news paper that provided accurate and in-depth reporting, it just skims the surface of most stories and only does in-depth reporting when it fits the agenda of the publisher and editor. I now find better reporting in the New York Post and the Daily Mail.
Let's just say that in these times, you have to find the truth by reading/watching what is presented by outlets like the New York Times and CNN and then reading/watching outlets like Daily Mail and the Drudge reports. The truth is somewhere between the two.
While I don't deal with the media now, I do still read, watch and listen to the media and it is not as "balanced" now as it was back in the 1980s. Hell, it's not even as good as it was back in the mid-70s when the media trusted absolutely no one connected to the government. CNN used to be a good source of news, but there are reasons why there are some who now refer to it as the Communist News Network now. We used to blame it on Jane Fonda but I have some friends who now claim it should be the Clinton News Network.
New York Times? It's not even a shadow of its former self. Why? Because instead of being a conservative, middle of the road news paper that provided accurate and in-depth reporting, it just skims the surface of most stories and only does in-depth reporting when it fits the agenda of the publisher and editor. I now find better reporting in the New York Post and the Daily Mail.
Let's just say that in these times, you have to find the truth by reading/watching what is presented by outlets like the New York Times and CNN and then reading/watching outlets like Daily Mail and the Drudge reports. The truth is somewhere between the two.
Stumbled across this and I gotta tell ya, although I really dislike some of the news sources listed, I do appreciate the fact that somehow this has avoided being overly political and thereby locked down.
I for one, find myself going through highs and lows, as it relates to my news consumption. Over the last 2 or 3 decades, after the advent of 24 hour news, it seems there's been a slow and steady progression towards "ratings boosters", the predecessor to "click bait".
I'm tired of every organization and their respective talking heads promoting their agenda while trying to marginalize or discredit the views of the opposition.
Sadly, to get enough information to make any sort of rational conclusion takes a lot more effort than one might have imagined.
My regular sources are...
WSJ
Townhall
Drudge
Breitbart
Then do a little cross comparison with
Fox
&
Cnn
I for one, find myself going through highs and lows, as it relates to my news consumption. Over the last 2 or 3 decades, after the advent of 24 hour news, it seems there's been a slow and steady progression towards "ratings boosters", the predecessor to "click bait".
I'm tired of every organization and their respective talking heads promoting their agenda while trying to marginalize or discredit the views of the opposition.
Sadly, to get enough information to make any sort of rational conclusion takes a lot more effort than one might have imagined.
My regular sources are...
WSJ
Townhall
Drudge
Breitbart
Then do a little cross comparison with
Fox
&
Cnn
Depends if you're looking for your bubble, someone else's bubble as a cross reference, or something rigorously reported with an effort to minimize commentary. For the latter, probably Associated Press, Reuters, and a cross section of regional papers that depict bubbles but provide an array. BBC has a point of view, but is enough different from U.S. media, it's useful to hear or read. Le Monde serves a similar purpose.
I don't see why anyone would complain. There are enough ideologically pure "news" sites, some of them listed above, to comfort anyone's preconceived, rigid, irrational, faerytale based, view of reality. Seriously, there's mind rot for everyone.
We probably should mention here that the news is a product, and every product is shaped more by its audience than its topic.
Back when there was a journalistic culture, maybe this was different. I remember journalists who did not belong to either side of the political spectrum.
Back when there was a journalistic culture, maybe this was different. I remember journalists who did not belong to either side of the political spectrum.
Yup deathm, that's when they actually deserved the respect they received for truly being the impartial Fourth Estate.
Unlike the the shrill pitched tantrums we here from them now, demanding respect when it has not been earned.
Unlike the the shrill pitched tantrums we here from them now, demanding respect when it has not been earned.
The title of this thread should have just been....which side of the aisle are you on, as where one gets their news both reveals and steers their views.
- Status