Hello Veeky Forums, I have 2 questions. What are the most trustworthy & factual news sources I can read from?

The only way to get the full picture is to read publications from both sides plus some in the middle.

>New Yorker.

mmm yes, republicans are so stupid. They should all move to New York and become enlightened about how Urban people are more cultured than hicks. Mmm. Exquisite.

Now please check the literature section for some incredibly middlebrow garbage short stories and awful poetry that REALLY make you think. What if the apocalypse was caused by biracial tensions between ivy league professors arguing over Rembrandt? So smart! Zadie Smith's new story highlights such on page...

Literally none. That's life.

The average New Yorker reader is likely more cultured than losers who live in flyovers, but the fiction does kind of suck.

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdown_relate_t.html#more

Read this. It will do you a world of good.

Propaganda from both sides doesn't even out matey.

This. If a news source is prominent enough to be visible, it has an agenda.

Except it does

New York Times
Washington Post
NPR
AP

Christian Science Monitor is pretty good.
But it's a weekly mag, so it's not the best if you are looking for up-to-the minute breaking news.

The Economist is a good choice

>unbiased
I don't know what to say to you if you think the Washington Post, the New York Times, and fucking NPR are "unbiased".

This
Also this. Don't consume only one news source like a pleb. Read lots of different sources to get the full picture. If you really care you can also shitpost on /pol/ because views are constantly challenged there.

>If you really care you can also shitpost on /pol/ because views are constantly challenged there.

What the fuck man.

They're not. Any view that is opposite to the hugbox echo-consensus is either ignored or responded to with cuck/ctr/shill/oyveywhocouldbebehindthispost

Anyone else just go for the comment section on The Economist? Ten times more giving than reading their predictable, liberal-globalist shit pieces of journalism.

That's due to 80% of the time the "liberal" viewpoint is brought up for low hanging (you)s. If you however actually engage in a conversation, you can usually get an actuall response or two. It is an unfortunate fact that the quality of the board has taken a nosedive in the last few years, especially with the election, but once you get a feel for the board it becomes much more manageable.
In regards to the OPs question I find a mix of sources to be the best. I am lucky that my university has both the WSJ and AP access which I consider the best. Reuters is also top notch and free. My go to source on the left is the Atlantic, and Drudge for the right. I also like foreign policy when they are talking foreign policy, but they too have taken a quality hit with the election. Hope it helps
t. /pol/ before /pol/ existed

rfe.org/

Which one is the best written? I've not really looked much but most of the NYT writing seemed pretty bad to me, with the New Yorker being slightly better. One writer included the drink, food, and location choices of all these college students he interviewed which I found amusing. Any with really good writing I could read?

AP
C-Span
C-Span 2
C-Span 3
Heritage Foundation

>"The government shut down just shows that our government doesn't function correctly!" That's one interpretation, the other is that when a car starts to smoke, you pull over and fix it
I had to stop reading there from laughter. Not understanding of how the debt ceiling works is one thing but that's fucking ridiculous.

Ignore anyone saying NYT is an unbiased source.

The WSJ is the most impeccable written news source in the world, bar none. There's a reason that the people who make money based on having correct information always subscribe to it.

Get it on a deal, weekend only if you don't read much. Even at full price it's worth it.

Why would you read a magazine called the Economist if you disagree with the consensus of economists?

tumblr/facebook/twitter and /pol/
read the opinions of the far left and far right
then check the tapes and decide for yourself

literally the only way

There's only Noam Chomsky desu.

>The WSJ is the most impeccable written news source in the world, bar none. There's a reason that the people who make money based on having correct information always subscribe to it.

Surveys among those in finance indicate this would be the Financial Times.

WTF I love Chomsky now

Call me #Noamercy

Local newspaper+newspapers from the region
Blogs of journalists/experts
Niche sites for tech/economics/politics/literature/film (Twitter is good aggregator)

i can imagine what kind of perspective this would give a person

>complaining about The Economist endorsing a candidate for President
>the Economist always endorses someone at major elections

Found the shill

>TOI
>Deepika padukone's cleavage is worthy of a headline

Kill yourself you pseud, bhenchod.

>confirmed for visiting /pol/ once, making a thread about a hot-button topic, being called a faggot, closing the tab and crying

>Associated Bloggers
>highly reputable

weak bait senpai

the week

You won't find just one. I try and read everything from Jacobin to Taki's Mag and everything in between

Idk I think NPR is pretty good, definitely biased but for the most part the programs I listen to have a good arrangement of guests that look at issues from multiple perspectives. Also when people complain about bias against Trump, can you really blame the media and intelligentsia for putting him down? I listened to an program today where a caller tried to argue to the panel that the media was biased for reporting "untruths" such as the fact that Trump was misogynistic, racist, etc.. Is it really biased when the media is simply reporting the truth?

>>
>Also when people complain about bias against Trump, can you really blame the media and intelligentsia for putting him down? I listened to an program today where a caller tried to argue to the panel that the media was biased for reporting "untruths" such as the fact that Trump was misogynistic, racist, etc.. Is it really biased when the media is simply reporting the truth?

I've been a loyal NPR listener for years, I love the Diane Rehm Show, Science Friday, and think ATC generally does a good job, but I have to disagree with you here, this election got really annoying for me. Designations like "racist", "misogynist", etc are ultimately subjective assessments of persons, institutions and actions, they're not facts like "114 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean today" are. I'm not saying that Trump isn't racist or sexist, and I think he will be a pretty bad president, but NPR covered him as though that was a given and didn't seem to allow for people who might contest that view. Now, they often phrased it as "Trump, whose candidacy is widely perceived as racist and xenophobic", which sounds factual, but ignores the questions of a) who perceives that?, b) where did they get that impression from?, and c) why is that a relevant descriptor?

As someone who supported Bernie during the DNC primaries, NPR did this to him as well, albeit to a lesser degree: a regular parade of stories like "Does Bernie have a problem with black voters?", "Does Bernie take women's issues seriously?", "Are Bernie supporters racist and/or sexist?", unflattering pictures of Bernie on their website as opposed to pictures of Clinton smiling, posing confidently and standing with supporters taking selfies.

NPR has also developed the bad habit, like most journalism has (although they are better than others like CNN), of reporting on tweets and facebook posts as though these are credible sources ("There are reports of ...") whenever it suits a story they are running. I know I'm not bias free, given that I supported Bernie, but coverage of him during the primaries felt very unfair and riddled with innuendo. Still better than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, etc.

This

These are all fair points and valid criticism. Unfortunately, the media and populace as a whole seems far more concerned with portraying candidates as celebrities and obsessing over irrelevant comments and tweets rather than actual policy. I heard on Diane Rehm today a women cite buzzfeed for a study they did on Facebook posts containing misinformation. I personally don't think very highly of buzzfeed and question the reliability of their information, but it makes one wonder, when the majority of media outlets forsake citation as a whole, where is this information coming from?

Also RIP Diane Rehm Show

Shit gets passed through so many filters nowadays that by the time it gets to you, you almost have to assume it has been distorted to some degree, sometimes to the point that the original source may have been claiming the opposite of what you're getting told. I've found articles on places like Slate, CNN, and Al Jazeera that link to fucking Wikipedia, that quote a linked source, and then when you check that source, the context of the quote is severely misrepresented or the quote just isn't even there, or that contain links that go back to a colleague of the author, sometimes even the author himself. You can literally cite yourself to support your own opinion.

It fucking sucks, and I think is a major reason why many people have lost faith in the MSM. I used to read CounterPunch, but kind of lost interest after Alexander Cockburn died.

Reuters is breddy gud though, definitely not perfect, but they at least maintain a pretense of impartiality and professionalism. It also helps to read the style manual of whatever source you're looking at to get a feel for what they will and will not say. Unfortunately you can't do this nearly as easily with radio or TV.

All the Cockburns are pretty great. Patrick is my go to source for Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War news.

>implying the analogy isn't analogous

These and zerohedge

>Democracy Now

Is this bait?

This. If the US election circus has driven a point home, it's how much the news are driven by ideology and the pursuit of clicks. The reality they represent is a literal caricature of the way things work on ground level.

it's not a matter of "evening out", but it's a matter of cross referencing the information presented from each outlet, while also becoming familiar with each news sources reporting style and political bias.
You'll start to see the way an event is framed and then that will give you even more insight into what's happening and why other people think they way they do. You'll be able to understand that people tune into certain networks because they want a certain narrative.

Are you American? If so, just watch your local evening news. Generally much more no nonsense/not shilly like national network or cable.

The Economist is anti- (both left and right wing) populist, left leaning libertarian with a lot of opinion injected in almost every article. It's not exactly best place to get just news

i'm going to add voice to the RT recommendation

Ever since I read Baudrillard I feel like I have been overwhelmed and I want to kill myself. All media is fucking shit.

Also qatar's enemies e.g. israel

>Its Leftist so its bad

Shut the fuck up /pol/tard. Democracy Now is legitimately great

>From now on I'm thinking of just reading Reuters, The Economist, & maybe the New Yorker

Talk about middle brow as it gets, embarressing

RT and lifesitenews from international sources, aside whatever is linked by hundreds of meme pages I have liked, various links by my leftist friends, 2-3 smaller news outlets from here.

>If a news source is prominent enough to be visible, it has an agenda.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Every single person on the planet has an agenda.

The problem is when people lie about their agenda. Everyone knows for example that HuffPo is a leftie newspaper, but they don't claim to be, which is what annoys me most tbqh.

twitter, forums, imageboards

I follow numerous news sources ranging from full on alt right shit like Breitbart (taken with a grain of salt) to full on intelligent lefty shit like the Atlantic and the New Yorker.

Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, local news stations, local news papers. Although they sometimes cut and paste stories from Associated Press. AP isn't terrible but it just has western bias.

>AP isn't terrible but it just has western bias.

No shit, it's a Western newspaper.

What did they meme by this?

If you're gonna be grouchy then no ice cream for you and it's straight to bed mister.

>RT
kys

>The WSJ is the most impeccable written news source in the world, bar none.

Owned by Murdoch

I'm just annoyed with the idea that people expect media to be unbiased and neutral, as if this is even possible by any metric.

>The Economist
>Lynn Forester de Rothschild
>unbiased
wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/250

as another poster said: all sources are going to be unreliable. that's life.

fuck off mate deepika padukone's cleavage is just what you need after another '400 dead in Bangladeshi factory' news story

sketchy youtube pundits are underrated. sort of like modern pamphleteers. I can't imagine anything more servile than refusing to accept news from anywhere other than big corporate newspapers

that said, good articles can come from anywhere. I find it more useful to follow individual journalists (whose opinions I can learn) than to rely on the reputation of a newspaper.

>implying Veeky Forums isn't enough of a news page

I work as an editor at major news site so listen to my opinion.

The Economist used to be very even-handed and reliable, but they sort of lost their shit with Trump and are more hysterical now. Still not bad though.

Today I would say the best ones are NYT, WSJ, Telegraph, the Hill and BBC in terms of reliability and even-handedness.

WaPo is garbage now since it became Jeff Bezos' blog.

The Daily Caller and Mother Jones very obviously have their biases, but they have really good originally reporting.