Are there any decent news sites anymore?

[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.

[Maxmars]

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.

In my opinion, we should never hesitate to add our contribution to a discussion like this, regardless of the "last post date."

I get that many people will initially look for a list of "reliable" or "worthy" news sites.  And perhaps suggestions of that nature might be useful...  

But ultimately, like you, I gravitate towards making certain that there is a working understanding about the nature of "news"... which is very different from what is "advertised." 

Once it became profitable to become a media mouthpiece for the powers of nations, organizations, corporations and "globalists" the news stopped being information and became instead a "tool" to be "used" by those who exploit "appearances" over reality.  Once "news reporting" fell into the hands of 'marketers' it abdicated its role as a noble element of civil society.

There was a devastating change in "news" journalism, as the culture in the field became about the 'reporter' (or in many cases, the editor.)  They clothed it in a new term "activist journalism.  A sad concession to narcissism... when reporters and editors don't report the news but "take part" in it. Or the equally disappointing rise of "press-release" journalism, where it's all authored by the 'subject' of the news, their adversaries, or an "establishment."

We definitely have the same ideas about trying to discern reality by examining the 'range' of reporting... But I have to confess, it sometimes becomes tiresome.  Some news is just so skewed and jam-packed with virtue signaling and embedded bias that it makes me want to ignore it entirely. Other times it is all an "advertisement" clothed in "news trappings."

[VulcanWerks]

www.zerohedge.com

[Raptured]

I gave up long ago.  I don't trust any of the sites out there.  If someone is paying for the content to be hosted and made public, someone is paying to have it presented a certain way.  Period (my take)

Maybe we can start a carrier-pidgeon network, lol.  I'll snoop around my small town and anything that goes down will get transmitted via bird to the next town, so forth and so on

[Maxmars]

I gave up long ago.  I don't trust any of the sites out there.  If someone is paying for the content to be hosted and made public, someone is paying to have it presented a certain way.  Period (my take)

Maybe we can start a carrier-pidgeon network, lol.  I'll snoop around my small town and anything that goes down will get transmitted via bird to the next town, so forth and so on

I think 'trust' should be reserved for between people... not "products." 

News is now a "product."

Never mind that the universe of "news" is owned by handful of "buddies."

[opethNJ]

I dont typically trust any single site to be a source of truth on a topic.

Some sites are clearly biased such as The Gateway Pundit so if I read something first from there I automatically need 2 or 3 other sites covering it and not just reposting. 

it's tough because try and validate facts and the Right says the Left facts are false then the Left says the Right facts are false.  

On top of that you have posters on every site that are not interested just giving facts as they are reported so it makes it tough to figure out what to believe.

---