Are there any good, trustworthy news sources that don't pander to the dumb masses...

Read as much news sources as you can, everything you can get your hands on

Analyze and compare different agendas,then form your own opinion on behalf of everything you read

>At least when I get lied to on /pol/ it's because someone's having a fucking giggle and not trying to warp the way I see the world for nefarious purposes
Ah, sweet delusion. Perhaps not for "nefarious" purposes, but that board does warp the way you see the world.

/pol/ can be a good source, the problem is /pol/acks will believe literally everything posted on /pol/. Speaking from experience, you can literally post random shit you cooked up 5 minutes ago on blogpost and they will believe it.

/pol/ is full of shills

Why, though? Why should I bother? Most journalistic writing is utter shit, and most of it about events that are completely irrelevant to me. If something huge happens, I'll surely hear about it by word of mouth. The media is just a giant propaganda machine.

Shill is such an idiotic term used by paranoid people
No one is putting in time and effort to shill their politics on fucking Veeky Forums. Reddit? Definitely, but even during the height of Correct The Record and Shareblue there was never any significant force of shills on /pol/. All those "wow... Drumpf truly btfo" threads are all just people taking the piss and doing it to get a rise out of people

Y-you mean to tell me that people were being ironic on Veeky Forums?!?

Wishful thinking. I'm guessing you're an oldfag stuck in 2006 when Veeky Forums was still an obscure website, but now it has literally million of users, obviously there are interest groups willing to influence opinions here.

If you don't care then don't read the news at all

You have two choices, you can accept one particular agenda and let it mould your worldview or you control the machine instead of it controlling you

>All those "wow... Drumpf truly btfo" threads are all just people taking the piss and doing it to get a rise out of people
I used to believe it's all sarcasm/irony until I found out /leftypol/ actually posts such threads in an organized manner in order to blackpill people.

Trump generals were started by shills from the beginning

>literally million of users
Only 2 people use this website.

This. I even voted for Trump but it's painfully obvious to everyone who's not retarded that a shitload of pro Trump agenda on 4/pol/, 8/pol/ and Plebbit is posted by actual Trump staffers.

But user, user is not only one person, we are legion

>Merkel rolls her eyes at Putin
>Putin is in fact pointing upwards and Merkel is following it
What was he pointing at?

eggspekt us

The ceiling, duh.

But what does it mean?

One of the reasons for Trump's success was his ability to exploit the internet userbase. Hillary did not pay particular attention to this, and when she did she only weakly emulated Trump. Her entire program eventually came down to "vote for me because i'm not Trump" ffs.

>Allah sees through your falsity, witch.

Al jazeera has always been reliable. My only problems with them is their blatant anti-Israeli bias and the fact they focus on the middle east too much.

>al jazeera
>reliable
Yeah especially the literal propaganda they vomit out about the war in Syria.

>My only problems with them is their blatant anti-Israeli bias
That's one of their best points, the bias is so obvious that it's easy to disregard. Unless that's a strategy of theirs and I'm getting bamboozled, but I can't go through life always assuming I'm too dumb to deserve to vote.

>NPR being anything but American liberal talking points

Drudge, al-Jazeera (unless Izzy-related), and /pol/.

The fuck are you talking about? As long as you actually watch the news for the news there's no problem. It's literally just a telling of events abd i happen to think Al Jazeera is good at that. It's when you get into their shows, interview pieces and "debates" that shit gets skewed with them. However unlike US news outlets that tend to constantly have a left/right mouthpiece come on with an opinion during the news AJ actually does a pretty good job of just giving the news.

/leftypol/ is as much a boogeyman as any other of the 10 boogeymen that Veeky Forums has gone through in the time I've been here.

I would say use multiple sources and try to sift through the bullshit. And avoid CNN and other msm, dont give the clicks

>British Black Cuckolding
>NPR, which ran an article by an """expert''' that whites should stop having children but niggers should be allowed to have as many as they want because muh climate change

/pol/ only gives you half of the story, the one they agree with.

t. Al Jazeera employee

>Watch or read news
>Don't look at editorials or analyses
>Just read the facts
>Do this on both conservative and liberal media
>if you see something that contradicts, try and fact check
>Form own opinion
Wow was this hard.

/pol/ is and always will be a Stalingrad for any kind of attempts to """shill""" as you say, since not only are they fairly stuck in their ways, but because it's such a vitriolic place where people are literally constantly on guard against "shills" and "slide threads" and "JIDF" and what not. It's just not worth the effort, especially when you can try and sway people on sites like Reddit where there are lots of normies who aren't aware that people are out to get them and where the diversity of opinion allows people to exploit subsections of it.
The only form of """shilling""" you could do on a place like /pol/ is for something sufficiently right wing and nationalistic, because their Overton Window is so far to the right that people will just call you what you are if you actually were to try and Shill for Hill

I'm just some bamafag phone posting. Nigger, you don't want to take my word for it just go to YT they have a livestream. Catch them during their news hours.

I'd rather get half the story than 1/16th of the story
People that don't do their legwork when on /pol/ are just as stupid as any other news watching idiot, but if you're prepared to do the work, it's a good source

>American
Well that explains everything, carry on lmao.

>yuropoor UNIRONICALLY thinks he's better than Amerigods
Don't make me laugh

You live in some 3rd world shithole state full of niggers and Nigeria-tier education, please humor me some more with your delusions.

user I don't live in Europe

Heck off, racist.

What's wrong with Reuters? I like reuters.

People have literally admitted to shilling on Veeky Forums

You've never been on /pol/.

Despite the fact that it's done for (you)s, you always see opinions on /pol/ challlenging the "hivemind". For every Trump general, there is a "fuck drumpf the russian traitor" thread.

/pol/ also breaks the news first (the turkish coup for example was stickied on /pol/ before even major news outlets started reporting on it) and you get to see funny memes once in a while.

There are no good news sources left nowadays man, the only non-shit news outlets are the purely economic ones.

>murder rate of 7.2
>84% high school graduation rate
>26% black
You literally live in Africa.

84% hey that's pretty good!

Reuters, RT, globalresearch.
I try to go to many different websites.

The problem is that the Left took over the media. They don't want to tell you the facts, they want to tell you their 'true interpretation'.

>tfw i used to post threads like that just to make them uncomfortable.

And as we all know, no one ever goes on the internet and tells lies.

I cannot recommend the Christian Science Monitor highly enough.

I also use WSJ, NPR/PBS/C-SPAN, BBC, WaPo, NYT, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Economist, and Der Spiegel. A few news aggregators of varying degrees of bias/agenda-drivenness as well. Sometimes, just to find out where all the idiots are getting their identical talking points from, I'll check out HuffPo/DailyKos/Townhall/Breitbart.

>Left took over the media
No, it didn't.
Libtards obsessing over identity politics and ignoring the distribution of money and worldwide warmongering != left

holy shit the amount of /pol/ delusion is disgusting. its been nonstop trump shilling since the beginning of last year.
that may be a clever turn of phrase but its a distortion of the truth. everything on /pol/ has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. its safe to say that average user doesn't have the ability to discern truth from falsehood, anyway, even if what they read corresponds with reality.
just look at
you can tell these anons are just spouting /pol/ talking points after people posted the most sensationalist articles from these sites as "proof" of some hidden agenda.
>he admits he wants to get lied to
yea, no. as other people have pointed out here reading from multiple sources and weighing the facts is better than relying on an incredibly biased anonymous image board where one can lie or tell the truth or exaggerate with no consequences.

>I cannot recommend the Christian Science Monitor highly enough.
Tell me more.

>globalresearch

>Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist and author. He is a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa.[1][2] Since 2001, he has been the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes pieces viewed as conspiracy theories and fake news.[3][4][5] Chossudovsky is himself a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[6][7]

wew

Pol always says this but i spent years there and the only large disagreements you see are fob's from reddit replying to painfully obvious bait and natsocs reeing at other people not being hardcore enough. And the occasional commie general that stays in one thread.
Strawpolls done there show very little ideological variation.

>MSM doesn't like him
So it might be a good source.

>taking the internet this seriously
>not realising it's possible to post on multiple boards, sometimes at once
Hello, reddit

>you can tell these anons are just spouting /pol/ talking points after people posted the most sensationalist articles from these sites as "proof" of some hidden agenda.
You cannot honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me those sources aren't anything but mediocre crap.

This is one of the most r*ddit posts I've ever read
Your boogeymanning of /pol/ is fucking laughable my dude. Professional tipperino to help you out: /pol/ isn't some archetypal enemy, it's just jerk offs having fun

They have a very strong reputation for being relatively unbiased, does a pretty good job with international as well as US-based news (reading NYT about anything international is a fucking nightmare. I was slamming my head during their entire Iran nuclear deal coverage). They try very hard to avoid sensationalism and fearmongering,

>MSM
Oh boy.

>cuckpedia

Who /John Batchelor show/ here?

>Libtards obsessing over identity politics != Left

Really? Civil rights, Womens rights and LGBT rights are now right wing? We can just ignore that these ideas were made by socialists, friendly to socialism and pushed by socialist parties across the world?

>ignoring the distribution of money

Which seems to be the only, even slightly related topic to economics that gets discussed. Again. And Again.

>worldwide warmongering

Somewhat true. The media always will highlight and talk of the injustices of the US but will ignore, or flat-out lie, when it comes to the warmongering of their leftist allies (See; the recent coverage of the HK-China handover and how it was always assumed that the Communists are the legitimate rulers of HK)

>They have a very strong reputation for being relatively unbiased
Amongst who?

It got worse. It used to be at least bearable to lurk.

AP?
Reuters?
Newsmax?
UPI?

I've also been reading The Week, and I've found it to be an efficient summary of American, and some global, headline stories and editorials. Also trying to judge if it's a bit left- leaning, but it seems sufficiently non-partisan.

The conspiracy threads are getting more batshit and fun, though.

Bretty good. Kind of an israel shill but his geopolitics coverage is top notch.

Pic strongly pertains to my present reading habits.

I was a spectical guy who rejected all conspiracies until they pretty much started getting proven right.

>spectical

At last we arrive at the root of the problem.

>Angry Young Indians

When headlines are this shit, it baffles me why people take any news source seriously.

It's just a snazzy headline Pajeet.

The Economist is known for its snappy, often humorous and punny headlines. The content is still quite good.

WSJ is pretty fair and accurate. A lot of hardcore Trump supporters hate it because they dare to question why Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot, and a lot of progressives hate it because they use mathematics to point out things like why a single payer health system and $15 minimum wage are actually more harmful for the people its supposed to help. If you lean conservative it's definitely up your alley, but they're by no means in the FOX or Breitbart range of right-wing. Also you need a paid subscription, so no poorfags :^)

Awesome show. I remember when he interviewed Andrew Roberts about Napoleon's entire life over 3 episodes.

>Ah, sweet delusion
I found the newfag.

/pol/lacks tend to oversensationalize things and misrepresent things in a way of getting you to follow their viewpoints.

Try to stick to the primary sources. Don't read about the press conference, watch the thing yourself. No matter what source it is there's always going to be some biased language. Sticking to the original material and creating an opinion yourself before being exposed to the medias take on it has helped me a lot.

>paying for shit that panders to people who want to pretend to be smart and """"""""informed"""""""""

Fuck that.

>This is one of the most r*ddit posts I've ever read. Your boogeymanning of /pol/ is fucking laughable my dude.
The fact you deccided to post this without thinking about its hypocrisy shows you to be a brainlet.

I never said those articles werent shit, but all media establishments have their click bait articles.

hmm nice ad hom. there's nothing to indicate whether i care or not, that's your projecting into my post.
>not realising it's possible to post on multiple boards, sometimes at once
yes, but people have home boards, and most people who come from /pol/ tend to identify with that board more than other boards they visit, given that its the most heavily visited board now.

This user has the only right idea out of the entire thread.

If you want accurate news, go to the agencies that have people on site the fastest and publishes their own pieces early. Trash news website source their news from other agencies. AP, Reuters, and UPI do their own matter-of-fact reporting.

Very cautiously, I would also say Fox News and BBC within the first 5-10 minutes of something happening. After that, the editors have time to twist the event towards their own agenda, but when it's only the professional journalists at Fox and BBC doing the reporting, they are quite good at it.

>reading the news.

>“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”

All you need to know is the world's society is heavily skewed, it's not going to be fixed any time soon and there is pretty much fuck all you, as an individual, can do about it.

I mean, all you are doing is buying into sensationalist media which profess the ills of the world because thats what sells.

RSBN really are trying their hardest to be an impartial NPR.

>so no poorfags :^)
:^(

Diversify your sources. Thats it. Smallet outlets often bring up good stuff wich doesnt get reported on bigger channels. Eurofag here so I can recommend Arte, Le monde diplomatique, Die Zeit, Taz, Monitor. But i always read in many differe t languages and sources. Often enough foreign sources pick stuff up local news wont touch because of the possible drawback.

>Really? Civil rights, Womens rights and LGBT rights are now right wing? We can just ignore that these ideas were made by socialists, friendly to socialism and pushed by socialist parties across the world?
Not him, but it's a question of scale.

Left wingers around the world recognize the importance of those things.

Liberal Democracts pander almost exclusively to those issues because they are "safe" issues which won't make their big donors in the financial sector nervous.

>Which seems to be the only, even slightly related topic to economics that gets discussed. Again. And Again.
you mean that small detail of middle classes around the developed world crumbling into ever more stratified societies which is stifling growth and demand because an ever more privileged minority is hoovering up virtually all of the productivity gains?

Yeah, such a small detail. What we really need to stop are transgendered women from using the bathroom at Target

>Somewhat true.

War is profitable to the people who donate to both political parties, as well as for the handful of powerful corporations who own virtually all of the news sources. And liberal hypocrisy is easily matched by conservative hypocrisy who magically turn into staunch isolationists whenever it's a Democrat in power.

The only correct answers are newswire companies, such as the AP, Retuers, UPI, etc. Personally, I read AP and Retuers.

/po/
Lives in their own autistic world
just a different dimension of reddit

No, there aren't. The best thing to do is just perform your own research. News sites are good because they bring attention to the existence of said news but you should review any studies or press releases or whatever's is being reported on yourself

Example:

>CNN: Latest Trump Move Will Leave 30 Million Americans Without Health Insurance
>review the White House press release and bill myself
>turns out that all the people overpaying for health insurance they don't need will instantly stop paying into it the second the law doesn't strongarm them into doing so
>this somehow translates to the sensationalist headline of "trump wants to kill 30 million Americans"