Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News source recommendation

  1. Nov 20, 2016 #1

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I want to subscribe to a reputable news source (even if I have to pay). I want a news source that has not abandoned journalistic integrity.

    I'll still keep my current sources of news (Yahoo!, Google news, NPR, BBC, etc.) but I am now -- out of principle if for no other reason -- feeling like I should better financially support at least one legitimate news organization.

    I think I'm safe in speculating that most PF members live in a democratic society. Democracy requires that voters are well informed on the issues. As a citizen of a democratic society I feel it is my duty to stay well informed.

    For a couple decades now I've always been saying that Rupert Murdock is and was the biggest a--hole/ass-clown alive in the world today. But now with the fake-news websites that have been popping up all over the place he's been relegated to being almost commonplace. Yes, as it turns out, Rupert Murdock is no more of an ass-clown than the hundreds of other progenitors of dishonest news. He's just a dime-a-dozen these days. It's a sad time for humanity. Very sad indeed.

    Don't get me wrong, Yahoo! and Google news have done a great job on filtering out much/most of misinformation, but there's just so much of it that an Internet based news source can do. (Facebook, not so much, but today promised to try to do better).

    I live in the USA at the moment, by the way. So far I'm considering:
    • Giving NPR a bigger donation
    • Subscribing to Washington Post
    • Subscribing to New York Times
    Does anybody have other suggestions?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 20, 2016 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I know that the Washington Post and the New York Times both have media bias, and have found media bias in NPR. Earlier today I found out that news outlet Reuters failed to fact check a bogus twitter from Trump claiming that he kept a Ford car plant in Kentucky open, turns out Ford had never planned to close that plant.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-writes-misleading-tweet-175020325.html

    Shameful, just shameful. Reuters posted false information!

    And no, this isn't the start of the things Trump has done. Just that there seems to be no news source you can trust.
     
  4. Nov 20, 2016 #3
    I have been subscribed to https://www.stratfor.com/ for a few years now.
     
  5. Nov 20, 2016 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  6. Nov 20, 2016 #5

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think they're all biased so don't pay much attention to that (although I recognize that it is by far the most egregious on FOX followed fairly closely by MSNBC) but I find the BBC to be good and in printed media I like The Economist.
     
  7. Nov 20, 2016 #6
    Who would do that? Personally I find them the least biased. It's all global intelligence reporting.
     
  8. Nov 20, 2016 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  9. Nov 20, 2016 #8
    I guess Stratfor is less news and more analysis. No doubt BBC and Al Jazeera are top notch.
     
  10. Nov 20, 2016 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When I watched Al Jazeera USA TV edition a couple of years ago it was excellent, as it was an attempt to emulate the BBC, but its WRITTEN web page was MASSIVELY anti-semitic and completely biased in favor of all things Arab.
     
  11. Nov 20, 2016 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is true, no news source can be trusted. If I had to pick one, it would have to be the BBC.
     
  12. Nov 20, 2016 #11
    The BBC is definitely my favourite to the point that I tend to rely on it entirely (which is probably not a great thing). I used to watch Al Jazeera Arabic TV but I gave up on it many years ago. It was almost comically biased. I'm not sure about their English channel/website though.
     
  13. Nov 21, 2016 #12

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I like the New York Times, but mostly because I think they make some of the best short science videos.
    Here is their LIGO video for example.
     
  14. Nov 21, 2016 #13
    I think bias is unavoidable especially in politics since feeling run deep. Going on-line and searching for article on "bias of ......... " you get some interesting and contradictory results showing that bias may be in the eyes of the reader too. Some try hard to avoid bias but we are human and other flaunt it. Two service mentioned above seem to be noted for their efforts to avoid political favoritism "The Economist" and Stratfor Enterprises. Although the Economist may be mostly politically neutral is does espouse an economic philosophy. The Stratfor Enterprise discusses bias and issues avoiding it. in an article If We Covered the U.S. Election which I found very interesting and indicating that it might be worth following routinely. Thanks @Greg Bernhardt
     
  15. Nov 30, 2016 #14

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  16. Dec 1, 2016 #15

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    On a more lighthearted note: today, The Onion posted a couple articles on this subject. (The Onion is a satirical, online magazine that parodies news for the sake of humor. I do not consider The Onion a fake-news source or a real news source; they are a comedy and satire source. Their articles are often quite pertinent, nevertheless.)

    Facebook User Verifies Truth Of Article By Carefully Checking It Against Own Preconceived Opinions
    http://www.theonion.com/article/facebook-user-verifies-truth-article-carefully-che-54790

    Longtime Reader Of Lib-Slaves.info Sick Of Mainstream Bias On Sites Like WideAwakePatriot.com
    http://www.theonion.com/article/longtime-reader-lib-slavesinfo-sick-mainstream-bia-54745

    “It’s so frustrating to see so-called journalists claiming that John Podesta’s hacked emails show his involvement in child prostitution, when in reality, they’re a clear indication of his membership in a D.C.–wide cannibalism ring."
    Ha ha! :biggrin::DD The sad thing is I've met several [real] people like that in the last several months.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  17. Dec 17, 2016 #16

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I just found a fairly good stab at a summary of sources, recently posted on imgur. It's limited to USA news sources. At a glance it seems like a pretty good start:

    A decent breakdown of all things real and fake news.
    7xHaUXf.jpg

    (Source: http://imgur.com/7xHaUXf)
     
  18. Dec 17, 2016 #17
    I read the Guardian and the Huffington Post, besides BBC News.
    Saturday Night Live also puts things in perspective.
     
  19. Dec 17, 2016 #18
    I would classify FOX as Utter Garbage in its entirety.
     
  20. Dec 17, 2016 #19

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, and I agree but millions of people disagree with us.
     
  21. Dec 17, 2016 #20

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I find it amusing that they show The Economist as skewed conservative since most of my conservative acquaintances think it is a raving liberal publication. Of course they also think that about CNN. Come to think of it I guess they think it about everything to the left of FOX.
     
  22. Dec 17, 2016 #21

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    i take "Foreign Affairs" , the CFR magazine, just to see what's up in high society.
    Sample: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti...pJobID=1061363676&spReportId=MTA2MTM2MzY3NgS2
    I don't think you will find an unbiased source for news. "Men In Black" had the right idea, pick up observations from the fringe and investigate them yourself. Wiki references are often helpful
    I'd never head about "Operation Timber Sycamore" by that name until a fringe site mentioned it last night.
    Wikipedia's reference 3 took me here
    http://www.janes.com/article/59374/us-arms-shipment-to-syrian-rebels-detailed [Broken]
    JanesArmstoSyria.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  23. Dec 17, 2016 #22
    @gleem makes the most salient point here. Your idea of "media bias" may not be your neighbor's idea. And we tend not to see our own bias for what it is. And since there is no agreement on what constitutes bias, there is never going to be a truly bias-free news outlet; especially since an absolutely accurate rendering of events in the abbreviated, anecdotal, deadline-driven form that news requires is impossible anyway.

    Beyond that, having been a newspaper reporter for 10 years when younger, I can say that most persons who haven't been in the business have no idea how newspapers & TV operate. The flaws in mainstream journalism are systemic more than they are political & are shaped mostly by the pressures of competition, the bottom line, tight deadlines, & journalistic convention. Think "pack journalism" for starters - although that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as conventions are concerned. Another is "there are two sides to every story" and although that's meant to be a good convention, it does a lot of damage. Outside of the problem of convention, think "progressively less & less money to pay for real reporters out there doing real reporting"; for a more serious form of bias than merely political, think "corporate ownership/hegemony/status quo."

    Despite all that, mainstream outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, and NPR still manage to strive for factual coverage that can actually be fact-checked - again, this is based on a convention; not all journalistic conventions are bad. Journalists themselves tend to be somewhat blind to how the bad conventions cripple them, but they are often idealists who truly believe in the good conventions; who believe that a free press is important to democracy. The convention of newspapers printing corrections every single day is part of this; you'll not see fake news outlets printing corrections.

    You can never be perfect, but you can do your best, or your worst. Mainstream journalists by and large try to do their best, while fake news outlets try to do their worst.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2016
  24. Dec 17, 2016 #23

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why do you consider that summary good or fair? I'm thinking the problem is that the label of "minimal partisan bias" is atop a hill with a steep gradient on all sides, with most of the media mass distributed to the left. None of the major networks belong on top, and certainly not the WaPo or NYT. They're not conspiratorial, but they are left and occasionally dabble in garbage. Reuters, WSJ news (not editorial) belongs near the top perhaps.
     
  25. Dec 17, 2016 #24

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In December 2008, while Obama was on vacation in Hawaii before inauguration, the WaPo printed the following on its front page:
    News desk rules that require dilligence do not excuse this tabloidism. WaPo is not a newspaper as I understand the term, not any longer, even if some news occasionally slips out.
     
  26. Dec 18, 2016 #25
    I'm not sure why this bothers you. Here's the headline to the article: "As Duties Weigh Obama Down, His Faith in Fitness Only Increases." It's entirely to do with the almost excessive intensity of his fitness regimen, so although you have bolded "chiseled pectorals," the real point of the article was "four weightlifting sessions per week" and "treadmill runs and basketball games." You have basically cherry-picked the least important detail in the story while mistaking its intended point. It's not the best-written story in the world - the lead is so soft that you have to read pretty far before you find this point; but it finally does arrive, in the form of what in the business is called the "nut graf" (key paragraph):
    Of course I suppose you could object that a story about a president using physical fitness as a way of releasing stress & staying sane while holding an insanely demanding job is too much of what inside the business is called a "feature" (versus "hard news"); you may think that features are "fluff" and only hard news should be on the front page. However if you were to analyze all newspapers, including first-tier papers such as the LA Times, NY Times, and Wall Street Journal (well, I guess we're still saying the WSJ is first tier), you'd see that a feature on the front page has been routine for the past several decades at least. Also, it depends on what other stories are breaking on the given day - something must go on the front page to fill it up, and if there are not a lot of big breaking hard news stories that day, than a feature is more likely to show up than would be the case on busier days.

    Of course it may also just be that you dislike Obama, although you haven't indicated that explicitly.

    Anyway all this goes back to my two main points: 1) most folks who criticize newspapers for bias don't know much about how the business operates & what the conventions are and how those conventions dictate coverage; and 2) they ignore their own personal bias.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2016
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted