Are there any decent news sites anymore?

[opethNJ]

I happily pay the subscription for the full Epoch Times. The free is still very good though. They are non-profit and not owned by big advert companies We paid the price when we started ingesting the "free" news model.

There isn't much fluff in any article. It's always well-sourced and pretty extensive in reporting.  They are conservative leaning, but factual.  Even allsides.com gives them similar assessment. Article selection is going to lean conservative, but the reporting is balanced and thorough. Also, comment censorship is pretty much only for filth. I can recommend all of their documentaries (Covid origins, J6, etc.)

Allsides - Epoch Times
They are also the best source in most cases for anything coming from inside China as the company was founded by those that fled communism there and they have lots of inside connections.

For me personally I would never use The Epoch Times, Natural News, The Gateway Pundit or The Conservative TreeHouse as a solo source due to their far Right, Conspiracy driven perspectives. Along those lines I don't use Reddit or 4Chan as a solo source. Finally,  I don't like to use CNN, MSM or Wiki as solo source.

Unless its a topic I am already knowldgeable on I try to getting confirming information on whatever item from multiple different sources.

[Halfswede]

For me personally I would never use The Epoch Times, Natural News, The Gateway Pundit or The Conservative TreeHouse as a solo source due to their far Right, Conspiracy driven perspectives. Along those lines I don't use Reddit or 4Chan as a solo source. Finally,  I don't like to use CNN, MSM or Wiki as solo source.

Unless its a topic I am already knowldgeable on I try to getting confirming information on whatever item from multiple different sources.

That seems like a very overt effort of guilt by association -- GWP and Conservative Treehouse have a long history of just making things up.  I know you used sole-source as the caveat, but your list and comments have me suspicious that you haven't bothered to even read them.  If that isn't the case, perhaps you could be more specific about what you found to be untrue.

I would challenge you to find one non-factual article on ET.  You may not like conservative ideals, but the articles are always heavily sourced and they often have exclusives because of significant FOIA and investigative efforts, such as Ashley Babbit's shooter calling in an 'active shooter' situation to cover his butt. Even their coverage of election fraud and J6 has only ever stuck with presentable facts. 

To be fair there are people to this day who think any mention of Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinfo and should be censored in spite of the DOJ admitting it and its contents are real, so who are the real conspiracy-driven folks?

I wouldn't sole-source any news, but this thread is about good news sites that present fair and accurate news.

Once again, I would challenge you to read and post one article from there that isn't factual. It has quite a bit of very good coverage on sports, economy, science, arts and literature as well. Politics is not the main focus even though it is on everyone's mind and at the forefront of almost all media.

[opethNJ]

That seems like a very overt effort of guilt by association -- GWP and Conservative Treehouse have a long history of just making things up.  I know you used sole-source as the caveat, but your list and comments have me suspicious that you haven't bothered to even read them.  If that isn't the case, perhaps you could be more specific about what you found to be untrue.

I would challenge you to find one non-factual article on ET.  You may not like conservative ideals, but the articles are always heavily sourced and they often have exclusives because of significant FOIA and investigative efforts, such as Ashley Babbit's shooter calling in an 'active shooter' situation to cover his butt. Even their coverage of election fraud and J6 has only ever stuck with presentable facts. 

To be fair there are people to this day who think any mention of Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinfo and should be censored in spite of the DOJ admitting it and its contents are real, so who are the real conspiracy-driven folks?

I wouldn't sole-source any news, but this thread is about good news sites that present fair and accurate news.

Once again, I would challenge you to read and post one article from there that isn't factual. It has quite a bit of very good coverage on sports, economy, science, arts and literature as well. Politics is not the main focus even though it is on everyone's mind and at the forefront of almost all media.

I listed 7 total sites that I wouldn't use as a solo source with those being: The Epoch Times, Natural News, TGP, CTH, 4Chan, Reddit, CNN, MSN, Wiki. I have to wonder why you focused on The Epoch Times ( a conservative site) vs realizing that its essentially 50% democrat and 50% republican which I would not solo source. 

Still, I have no bias towards either side because , much like I said over and over on a past site, I do not not think that the current POTUS and the last POTUS are anywhere near good enough to lead this country. That both parties have to do way better then they have. 

In regards to The Epoch Times again as shown on that other site I don't believe in posting anything unless I have good information to make and informed decision on whatever it is I am saying. I've been to The Epoch Times quite a bit and just by looking at the article rotation you can easily see they are anti-vax which I don't agree with and very pro-Trump. Inherently people or sites should be able to believe what they want so at its core I support them being antivax and huge supporters of Trump. I disagree with both but as I said, I support their choice to do just that. Which leads to that list of sites I wouldn't solo source. When trying to figure out the truth, using anything or anyone with a clear bias means you are only getting 1 side of the story.

[Halfswede]

This thread is about "Are there any decent news sites anymore?". That's it.  Not what is the best sole-source news site?. 

I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven.  All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.


...

As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax.  They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach.  Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax. 

Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.

People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?

Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.

[Kenzo]

News now gives links to multiple news sources


News Now

[opethNJ]

I listed 7 total sites that I wouldn't use as a solo source with those being: The Epoch Times, Natural News, TGP, CTH, 4Chan, Reddit, CNN, MSN, Wiki. I have to wonder why you focused on The Epoch Times ( a conservative site) vs realizing that its essentially 50% democrat and 50% republican which I would not solo source. 

Still, I have no bias towards either side because , much like I said over and over on a past site, I do not not think that the current POTUS and the last POTUS are anywhere near good enough to lead this country. That both parties have to do way better then they have. 

In regards to The Epoch Times again as shown on that other site I don't believe in posting anything unless I have good information to make and informed decision on whatever it is I am saying. I've been to The Epoch Times quite a bit and just by looking at the article rotation you can easily see they are anti-vax which I don't agree with and very pro-Trump. Inherently people or sites should be able to believe what they want so at its core I support them being antivax and huge supporters of Trump. I disagree with both but as I said, I support their choice to do just that. Which leads to that list of sites I wouldn't solo source. When trying to figure out the truth, using anything or anyone with a clear bias means you are only getting 1 side of the story.

 

This thread is about "Are there any decent news sites anymore?". That's it.  Not what is the best sole-source news site?. 

I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven.  All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.


...

As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax.  They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach.  Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax. 

Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.

People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?

Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.

Why do you get to dictate what a decent news site is though? To me being able to trust a given site is as much a part of it being decent as anything. 

Again i listed 9 total sites I try to not or will not use as single source of information. Yes The Epoch Times is one of those 9 just like the 8 other ones are also.

[ANNEE]

You can look at the Media bias chart: https://adfontesmedia.com/ad-fontes-medi...ias-chart/

I use a number of sources -- NPR, Wall Street Journal (right-leaning), CBS, local news (actually it's the local PBS station), BBC, AlJazeera, Reuters, and AP News

Yes, I scan them all every morning, reading stories from each.  I find that this gives me a broader picture than reading just one source.

Yep — that’s what I do. They all have the same story — just with a different slant.

I also now research the author. I’ve noticed recently RW leaning articles showing up on LW leaning sites (and vice versa). Makes me wonder if it’s by intention or articles aren’t being checked closely.

[Halfswede]

 

Why do you get to dictate what a decent news site is though?

It's a thread asking for news suggestions. I offered one. I don't really know how to respond if that is your takeaway from anything that's been said.

[opethNJ]

It's a thread asking for news suggestions. I offered one. I don't really know how to respond if that is your takeaway from anything that's been said.

That is not the takeaway I have gotten from this thread. That would be like me saying your takeaway was that The Epoch Times, TGP and CTH were the only sites I listed based off your posts so far. 

I agree, it is a thread asking for news suggestions and not using one of those 9 as a solo source is a sound suggestion .

[FlyingClayDisk]

Not trying to necro-post here, but I feel this is a very important topic today and going forward.  The MSM in the USA and Europe is, for the most part, morally bankrupt.  Beyond this, most other news agencies are champions of the countries in which they are based, or the cultures where they are based.  Finding truly 'objective' journalism today is nearly impossible.  And, to this end, I think it is critically important to keep subjects such as this one in front of people constantly.  Plus, the right answer today will likely not be the right answer tomorrow (i.e. it is a constantly changing landscape).  As an admitted conservative, I cannot watch websites like FOXnews, Breitbart or similar.  In fact, I cannot recommend a single source for objective news.  However, I have found a solution which seems to work fairly well for sorting out what is going on.  It goes something like this...

Rather than tirelessly trying to find a website which is truly neutral / objective, instead do the exact opposite; go to the most extreme examples of spin doctoring there is on BOTH sides of an issue.  From this, you can usually sort out the real story, or at least extract out the relevant points to form an objective analysis.  So, for example, if I'm trying to get to the bottom of a US political issue, I might start by looking at CNN / MSNBC / NPR (etc) to get one side, and then looking up the same subject on FOX / Newsmax / Breightbart (etc.) to get the other side.  For the UK, you can pick the usual suspects on both sides of an issue.  I know all of these sources will be highly biased, but I also know which direction they will be slanted, so if I analyze all of these to find neutral ground...it's probably pretty close to the "real" story.

Similar process for international news, but with different sources.  Interestingly, Al Jazeera can sometimes be balanced IF the issue is not a strong Middle East cultural one, but you can also use the polarized opposing sources like I described for the US and Europe, but instead use sites like RT for one side, and regional news sources for the other side, and then balance the two (or four, etc).

Propaganda and spin is King today, more so than ever before.  It's not just about an agenda, it's also about BIG money.  Propaganda and spin are nothing new, but in today's times the level of bias in just about all mainstream news is highly biased one way or the other.  Social media is also a big contributor to news bias these days.  We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent in understanding what is really happening in the world around us today.  All of our lives depend on it.