# Where do you get the news poll?



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

Just interested in where you get y'all news as it often serve as a small indicator of one's interest. This is meant as a fun and harmless poll so don't take the result seriously. If you feel inclined, post the name of the sources or the type of it as there is a lot of different sources for each category (for example: Duke Mathematical Journal vs The Quarterly Journal of Economics). I will be interested in the results.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Conrad2 said:


> Just interested in where you get y'all news as it often *serve as a small indicator of one's identity. *


There's a red flag.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

So here is a non-comprehensive overview of where I get the news

Newspaper/Magazine:
NYer, The Economist, and Foreign Affairs

Online Articles/Video:
NYT, WSJ, FT, NPR, and WP

Trade Journals:
SOA magazines

Scholarly Journals:
JSTOR (aggregate source of scholarly articles) and whatever law review my wife bring


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*I had hoped that with no specific news sources listed in the poll, we could keep politics out of it. Unfortunately I already had to delete a post that was far too political. *


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

Manxfeeder said:


> There's a red flag.


Yes, often it's a red flag, however it could also show your interest. For example, if you are interested in cars you can subscribe to auto magazine to be up to date on what's going on in the auto world. Or cooking, I'm subscribed to NYT so I have access to NYT Cooking so I do recipe. I like to read books, so I'm subscribed to The New Yorker, so I can read the latest book review or short story. It depends on the extent that it reflects you. For me, it just an extension of my interest, for others, it become their Creed (which I think is wrong).

However, in this case, I think *interest* is more closely align with what I have in mind, as identity is too strong of a word, so I have edited my post to reflect my thoughts.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> *I had hoped that with no specific news sources listed in the poll, we could keep politics out of it. Unfortunately I already had to delete a post that was far too political. *


My apologies, Art, seriously... I have "impulse control" issues... I just couldn't resist going for the laugh...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Conrad2 said:


> Yes, often it's a red flag, however it could also show your interest . . . However, in this case, I think *interest* is more closely align with what I have in mind, as identity is too strong of a word, so I have edited my post to reflect my thoughts.


Thanks for the clarification. I got nervous because America right now is so polarized that many times people are thrown into boxes merely based on perceptions, so it's almost dangerous to publicly admit to what you read or listen to.

Just speaking generically, as far as news, I listen to my local radio station, read news articles from both the left and the right's perspectives, and subscribe to a couple magazines whose politics I despise, but I read them anyway to try to understand where they're coming from.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

BBC News website
Guardian website
Facebook feed (The New European, Britain for All)
ADVRider.com "CSM" forum (often reports major events before news outlets, although very US-centric)
Kent Online for local news
Linkedin for business news


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I read the national newspapers on internet, check some international sites as well, and watch news on TV (Dutch and international channels). For local news, I rely on local newspapers (online) and Facebook.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I downloaded several newspaper apps on my phone and get a ton of headlines day and night...


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Channel 4 News on the TV.
Guardian, Irish Times, Al Jazeera, Washington Post on-line newsfeeds.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

My primary source is the BBC. Not only for a non-commercial, non-corporate view of the world, but stories not covered here in the US. For example: when I was seeing a healthcare provider last month, I pointed to an oxygen bottle and said they could sure use that in India. The provider had no idea what I was talking about. She had no idea that at the time, oxygen was selling for $1,000 a bottle in India, due to its scarcity in the throes of the pandemic.

A while back, the FCC was holding a local meeting, to hear public feedback on US media conglomeration. Every single last person in attendance was there because they heard about it on the BBC news. Not a single local station or newspaper would mention it. Doing so would have been against the interests of their owners.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

We get a daily newspaper, so that is the main source.

We also look at the BBC website online for 'breaking news' as we don't have a television.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I would like to get my news from somewhere that doesn't treat press releases by pressure groups and political parties as though they are news. Party A saying that Party B is not doing very well is not news.

The trouble is that I can't find such an outlet. I suspect it is laziness on the part of journalists, plus the genuine additional difficulties of getting reporters to explore things in the physical world given current restrictions. However, I don't want to excuse journalists too much: it is just too attractive for them to sit at home and merely repackage a press release from an activist (especially one they agree with), as though that is journalism.

Hence, I don't really think that I get "news" from anywhere these days. I just get access to a curated collection of press releases, where the bias of the releases selected depends on the political slant of the outlet.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2021)

NY Times, Washington Post, BBC News, Local Newspapers, Apple News (an aggregator), those little articles that pop up when you open a new Firefox page. All using the internet. No television or print media.


----------



## Dorsetmike (Sep 26, 2018)

I'm 87 and past caring, - what is to be will be.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I prefer various print sources because I enjoy reading much more than watching TV. Television news tends to oversimplify complex issues and rarely presents enough context for more than a superficial understanding of the issues. The cable news networks have been reduced to nothing more than punditry filling up most of the airtime.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

I'm aware that there are third party websites such as politifact and Snopes where they act as fact checkers. For our British friends, I heard about Full Fact being a good fact checker website, but I don't used their website often as it focused on UK affairs exclusively. Does anyone used their services or something similar to that?

Also, I find AP and Reuters (value-neutral approach) to used minimal rhetoric and spin, so I often cross-read what I read on those websites too.

The Pew Research Center does research on media in the United States, and some of the studies are illuminating.

Also, crashcourse, an educational YouTube channel did a series called "Media Literacy" which delve into how media work and evaluating the source you used. They also did "Digital Literacy" which focused on online sources (Note the 1st installment for Media Literacy is the last video on the website, while the number in the corner of the Digital Literacy's videos is the order).


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Eclectic Al said:


> I would like to get my news from somewhere that doesn't treat press releases by pressure groups and political parties as though they are news. Party A saying that Party B is not doing very well is not news.
> 
> The trouble is that I can't find such an outlet. I suspect it is laziness on the part of journalists, plus the genuine additional difficulties of getting reporters to explore things in the physical world given current restrictions. However, I don't want to excuse journalists too much: it is just too attractive for them to sit at home and merely repackage a press release from an activist (especially one they agree with), as though that is journalism.
> 
> Hence, I don't really think that I get "news" from anywhere these days. I just get access to a curated collection of press releases, where the bias of the releases selected depends on the political slant of the outlet.


Agreed. When journalists reduce themselves to stenographers, they basically say "This person says the sky is blue, the other says it's green. You'll have to decided for yourself what color the sky is."


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Western state propaganda, like most everyone else here. There really isn't much difference in any of them anymore - BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.

Some samizdat in places like substack or patreon, foreign state propaganda for international issues (Chinese, Russian, non-Gulf oil Arab media). You can balance the latter with more western-oriented foreign media like South China Morning Post, Epoch Times, Asia Times. Reading foreign state media makes you realize what a low level western media has sunk to, it's almost as if it's designed to be stressful and confusing between the shrill histrionics and the conspiracy theories.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

bz3 said:


> Western state propaganda, like most everyone else here. There really isn't much difference in any of them anymore - BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.
> 
> Some samizdat in places like substack or patreon, foreign state propaganda for international issues (Chinese, Russian, non-Gulf oil Arab media). You can balance the latter with more western-oriented foreign media like South China Morning Post, Epoch Times, Asia Times. Reading foreign state media makes you realize what a low level western media has sunk to, it's almost as if it's designed to be stressful and confusing between the shrill histrionics and the conspiracy theories.


That's how they make their money. The more sensational, the more eyeballs to sell to advertisers. When the public was truly informed was when news was a loss leader.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

progmatist said:


> That's how they make their money. The more sensational, the more eyeballs to sell to advertisers. When the public was truly informed was when news was a loss leader.


I do not buy that. I believe a confused and disinformed populace is the desired result, not ad revenue. Literally no different than Pravda.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Another thing I hate is online headlines. Take the current new front page on BBC News. I will pick some headlines, but I'm not expressing an opinion either way on the substance.

"Poorer white pupils neglected for decades, say MPs" 
"New protest bill may breach human rights, say MPs"
_In both the above I am sure there are MPs who disagree with the above. How many? Which party affiliation? On what grounds? How strongly? What is the substance in detail of what is being said?_

"Outcry as Ticketmaster cancels Wimbledon tickets"
_How big an "Outcry"? Why such a strong word? From how many people? How communicated to the BBC?_

"Ex-suspect denies corruption harmed Morgan enquiry"
_I am sure other folk think corruption did harm the enquiry. Suspected of what? How knowledgeable about the operation of the enquiry?_

"Restaurant stops serving lunch due to lack of staff"
_I am sure other restaurants are serving lunch!! Perhaps this restaurant doesn't pay enough, or has a bad reputation among staff. What do we know? Why are we interested in one restaurant? What is the picture across the country, rather than in one restaurant?_

"All Bumble staff given week off to de-stress"
_I don't even know what Bumble is. Why is this story even provided? Are lots of businesses doing this sort of thing. Did Bumble have particular issues? Is this just a bit of PR for the firm?_

"Sturgeon expected to confirm lockdown easing delay"
_Can't we wait to find out what actually is announced? Expected by whom? Why all this speculation about future announcements?_

"Cambodia activists charged with insulting the king"
*That's actually news in the sense that something actually happened and it is being stated factually.* (Although I would have capitalised the word "King" and I would question how we are to interpret the word activists. It would be better just to note perhaps "N people", rather than an unspecified number of "activists". The nature of their activism should be for the content of the story, not the headline.)

My pet hate is the line "Expert says", which means the reporter has heard from one person who happens to be Professor of X somewhere who believes something that the reporter wants to push. Whether there are plenty of "experts" who believe the opposite is not investigated (- certainly not in the headline). You can predict from which news outlet you are reading whether the "expert" will have one slant or another on a contentious topic, and the slants which will not be presented as having the support of "experts" despite there being such "experts".

Another interesting thing to is follow the connections. Quote often if you can be bothered to look up the full content of something which is referenced in a headline or story you will find that the quote used is not representative of the content, taken out of context, etc. Equally, if a topic is something you know quite a lot about personally, then it is striking how the story usually looks simplistic and lacking in a neutral stance towards the issues - frequently being a cherry-picked subset of valid points which can readily be challenged and found to be questionable.

The point I'm making (somewhat laboriously, sorry) is that the headlines should be studiously bias-free (as it is only by looking at the detail that one can get a proper understanding of the issues), and yet the headlines are deliberately striking. Perhaps this is claimed to be necessary in order to get people to click, but the problems are two-fold: (1) many only see the headlines and so get the message "People are against that" or "People are for that", rather than "That is a topic of discussion", and (2) those who do click go into the story having been primed by the bias of the headline - "there are people against this" or "there are people for this", rather than the more neutral "this is a topic people have different opinions about".


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

bz3 said:


> I do not buy that. I believe a confused and disinformed populace is the desired result, not ad revenue. Literally no different than Pravda.


Within the past couple of decades, most definitely. And the source of much of the disinformation is Russian trolls. So in effect, it *IS* Pravda. But there are certain news outlets, which I shall not name to comply with forum rules, who have absolutely monetized disinformation.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

progmatist said:


> Within the past couple of decades, most definitely. And the source of much of the disinformation is Russian trolls. So in effect, it *IS* Pravda. But there are certain news outlets, which I shall not name to comply with forum rules, who have absolutely monetized disinformation.


NYT is nothing but disinformation and they are not Russian in any sense of the word. Theodore Dalrymple is much more succinct than I ever could be:


> "Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I trust local news the most.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Old Betty at the end of our street - she's pretty clued up.


----------



## Ad Astra (Aug 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> I prefer various print sources because I enjoy reading much more than watching TV. Television news tends to oversimplify complex issues and rarely presents enough context for more than a superficial understanding of the issues. The cable news networks have been reduced to nothing more than punditry filling up most of the airtime.


I completely agree, the Television news here is very one sided at least with print sources one can read both perspectives on events. Although like *DorsetMike* I am getting past caring at this point. The Government(s) will so as they please with or without consent from the public.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ad Astra said:


> I completely agree, the Television news here is very one sided at least with print sources one can read both perspectives on events. Although like *DorsetMike* I am getting past caring at this point. The Government(s) will so as they please with or without consent from the public.


Too many people are wasting energy complaining online instead of contacting their representatives. I'm reading a lot of disturbing articles in the news which make it quite clear that the politicians in the pockets of the plutocrats are pushing an authoritarian agenda. Voter suppression tactics, attacks on free speech, invasion of privacy, intimidating journalists, etc. It's a mistake to cave to cynicism and tune out.


----------

