[Closed] So what are your go to trustworthy news sources/editorial?

trustworthy news sources/editorial

Two very different questions imo. My go to for editorial comment is the Morning Star, there is no other editorial source which I would remotely trust. The Morning Star is of course a totally biased news source, for day-to day news I heavily rely on the Independent/the i, then the BBC, and finally, at a push, the Guardian.

Bruce Schneier
Rev Stu
Craig Murray
Commentators on FB
order-order sometimes

And I look at the D Tel, Grauniad & Inde websites.

New Scientist
Nature
The Edge

and for a laugh - Info Wars

Two very different questions imo.

Very true. I guess by trustworthy editorial I meant a reasoned, sourced and 'professional' argument that acknowledges that there are alternative viewpoints and but debunks or opposes using facts and intellect rather that scaremongering or slander. I can read a Telegraph opinion piece, not a agree with it's supposition but respect its viewpoint because of the way it goes about constructing it.

I forgot add that I was inspired to write to OP after a conversation with my wife who admitted that in the last year apart from being 'forced' by me to have R4 today programme on in the morning (I think this is my only win in convert towers SOPs) she could not recall a news source she has consumed apart from articles seen on Facebook and the metro. I find this scary considering the 12 months we've just had.

The FT.

"Independent and impartial" doesn't really exist, and never has done.
Most people read the sites/publications which confirm their views.
Journalists tend to be arrogant know-it-alls, the ones who joined the debating society at school and bored everyone senseless talking about abortion and gay rights.

"Independent and impartial" doesn't really exist, and never has done.

Which is why I didn't use the phrase. But there's the rub- you can acknowledge it is not independent and impartial but still possibly trust it.

I enjoy reading from most sources whether it be Breitbart or the Daily Mirror, Guido Fakes or New Statesmen.

I like Spectator and Economist editorials, but also consume BBC, France 24, and Politico output.

Its not what you read, but how you approach all of them.
Sometimes you read for validation of your own views or prejudices, sometimes it's to encourage questioning of the same in your own head. And other times it's to see what the weirdos at the other end of the spectrum are thinking.

STW forum informs my world view.

I suppose what's needed is some form of "peer review". But who does it and how does it square with getting a scoop?

My own sources tend to be BBC website and increasingly the Grauniad (which surprises me a bit as apparently, given my age, I should be a right wing looney Brexiter).

Oh STW of course.

BBC (web and R4) and Guardian on-line - the latter has a pretty obvious slant but also plenty of decent writing. Torygraph a bit but it's largely paywalled (would look at Times if I could). And twitter which often links to a wide range of sources.

I get the news I need from the weather report.

new york times
washington post
Le monde
BBC
Guardian
Independent
Twitter
Facebook
Google,

And a tendency to only believe things if more than one source agrees.

I think your dad has the right idea , it's very easy to end up reading things that only confirm what opinions you already have . I was convinced at the last general election that labour would win as I had probably been guilty of only reading news from left leaning sources and following only like minded people on twitter .
I use the guardian app a lot and the independent a bit but I try not to kid myself that the reporting isn't leaning one way , recently downloaded the huffington post app and was very disappointed , just click bait really .
I' think the BBC does a pretty good job of being impartial and would probably trust news from them but I think nearly everything seems to have an agenda one way or the other these days

Interesting post, I suspect many of us have been thinking about this recently given DT's comments on fake news.

For me: R4, The Economist, FT and Private Eye...

STW forum informs my world view.

😆

You can balance it out by going over to arrse forums

The Daily Mash, The Onion and Private Eye.

I rely entirely on Facebook links to websites I've never heard of. I've 'taken back control'

Finding at the moment that I'm seeing or reading very little news at all; my dad's in hospital, the bloke next door has stopped bringing round the Mail and Western Daily Press for him, and often I'm not home until after the early evening news, so it's whatever news I hear on whatever car radio I'm listening to, and maybe something I read via Flipboard.
Can't say I'm too fussed about missing it, TBH.
Stops me shouting at the telly over whatever Trumpton's latest utterings happen to be.

STW forum informs my world view.

I got bored of R4 a while ago, don't read newspapers (or online versions) & don't watch TV, so I genuinely get 90% of my news from this forum. Highly filtered, but in no way biased, surely??

EuroNews. I love it. We've had a conversation on here before about news with and without comment, but the fact that EuroNews just shows silent footage, or footage over which there is simple, factual commentary, is just the ticket, I think.

Beyond that, I tend to pick up the news by scanning Google News, and so seeing the headlines as they are presented by a number of papers.

If I buy anything, it will be a periodic issue of the Guardian, the Telegraph, or the Independent.

In terms of the paper whose editorial bent I most closely identify with, it is probably the Independent.

If I buy anything, it will be a periodic issue of the Guardian, the Telegraph, or the Independent.

In terms of the paper whose editorial bent I most closely identify with, it is probably the Independent.

The indy (sadly) hasn't been an actual paper for a year now.

I don't currently subscribe to an online 'paper' yet. I feel I should as I want quality journalism to survive and it seems it only will in virtual form. I just can't get my head around consuming editorial content in electronic form.

I get the news I need from the weather report.

I get the news I need from the weather report.

Big thumbs up!

I subscribe to the NYTimes, the Washington Post and the New Yorker.

Reddit (worldews, news, uncensorednews)
Huffington Post

For high-level overview of (some) what's going on in the world:
Guardian
BBC

C4 News, BBC web and radio.

Bloke down the pub, as long as it's not Nigel Farage again.

Lifelong Guardian reader - I know its foibles and biases and while I don't always agree, I broadly trust its use of evidence. And the Telegraph for balance. BBC sometimes, though more on air than online. And occasionally the Mail for imbalance. Plus randoms like the Washington Post, New Statesman, Mirror etc.

I've found the coverage of the recent Sky TUE thing fascinating as a study in how news develops and is covered in a 21st Century environment. There's a prevalent 'me too' uniformity to it all, with a small but very influential coterie of sports journalists who are 'mates' in real life and on twitter egging each other on to re-tell the same story with the same narrative and using the 'twittersphere' as a sounding board as to what the public thinks.

It's sometimes simplistic: medial confidentiality is an 'obstacle' to investigations by UKAD - the organisation which leaks information regularly to the media - rather than something which elite athletes have and sort of rights to. Treatment for mental illness anyone, why should that be out in public scrutiny? Or corticosteroids, where's the scientific rather than anecdotal evidence of their performance enhancing effects?

I'm not saying there's a not a story there, but a lot of the coverage seems to lack balance and you have to think that some of that is down to journalists working in an environment where they feel under pressure to get the story out now and fall into line with a central narrative.

I subscribe to the NYTimes, the Washington Post and the New Yorker.

Mostly from interacting with the people in life, business, travel, friends in the US and France. Backed up by BBC, flip board tends to drag in a wide variety of news, tend to treat blogs as opinion rather have fact but like STW they often produce suprising information. Based upon above I said the Tories would win the last election, Brexit and Trump would happen, not as I am clever just listening to people.

Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, then for a bit more balance the Spectator. When I want to laugh at lily livered liberals - I peruse the Guardian.

Listen to BBC 4 in the morning, so I know what the best comic bits in the Guardian will be.

Did persuade my school to subscribe to the Morning Star, as I had been told it had good racing tips - sadly this information was wrong and costly. I think my informant confused it with the already defunct Clarion.

Depends on what sort of news. Middle East for instance I'll look at what Al Jerzzera has to say, and then maybe read Fisk or Cockburn. I try to read/watch a few views.

I take information from all sources and use my own judgement on which are the most trustworthy. I'll use those to form my own view which, disclaimer, may not represent any of the views in the sources.

Apart from the Daily Mail of course. Anything in that must be BS.

BBC, abc, npr, guardian, BBC world service, nyt, Washington post, wsj and ft. I'll read around the times, telegraph to see what they are thinking.
Again always remember to separate report, editorial and opinion. All of the above publish stories, facts and opinions. Also multiple and direct sources - was listening to an npr (us national public radio) political podcast, the reporter who was in the white house briefing was a good source to report on what happened.
Into the mix Google now delivers stuff based on topic not source. I've been reading some bonkers alt right stuff that seems to have been written in an alternative world (with better selective quoting than some big hitters)
The other part of journalism is not about reporting its about picking the questions to ask.

Many papers simply post the same text lifted from the same source with, if you are lucky, a different top and tail and a sensationalist headline to grab your attention. This rarely relates to the text.

I was thinking about the same thing a couple of weeks ago. I came to the conclusion that if I was in a part of the world that I was largely unfamiliar with and was caught up in seemingly strange events, I would try to get a BBC R4 / World Service broadcast in the belief that I would hear a reliable honest account of what was really happening.

[url= https://www.fca.org.uk ]FCA - Financial Conduct Authority[/url]

News has always had an editorial bias. The beauty of the internet is you can go straight to the source and listen to a speech or read a report first hand.

I follow many sources

Sky (easily accessible internationally) & BBC
Channel 4 excellent but blocked outside the UK

Guardian
Independent
Telegragph

Regularly read
Bloomberg
Huffington Post
Order Order / Guido Fawkes
Spectator and New Statesmen
ABC, CBS & Fox for US coverage plus Breitbart
DW.com for Germany/Europe
Al-Monitor for Middle East
Stand with US and various Israeli news sources

The beauty of the internet is you can go straight to the source and listen to a speech or read a report first hand.

You reading Brietbart for the lol's?

I'm surprised to see only one vote for Euronews. You can choose the language, I'm not sure why but I usually watch it in German, and Saxonrider is the other fan... makes me think.

*stares blankly into space*