What news sources does Veeky Forums read or follow?

AP & Reuters sometimes, but mostly I just try and glean what's happening in the world from conversations with people. But I never ask about any details because I want to seem like I know whats happening.

BBC, NPR, NYT, Washington Post, Atlantic, sometimes RT or Al Jazeera if I want more views of a topic.

this is just for national/international news stuff. I read the Kansas City Star and listen to KCUR for local stuff.

/pol/

Jesus, I get called a liberal all the time and I just vomited in my mouth. Those aren't news, they're low-grade editorial media.

Reuters, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Süddeutsche

This.

MSM is fake news, take the red pill

funny how the altrightos only read what fits their world view. also note how a lot of it is twitter, which is not a news source

Exact same goes for the left.

Can you guys recommend me some website with good quality news from all over the world (but mostly Europe and US) and rigorously based on TRUTH?

Also, it must be politically impartial.

Economist?

Reuters BBC etc

AP and Reuters.

/pol/ and the other /pol/

unironically great for international news and internationa politics

Must read, but not really a news source.

>

What does this post imply

Better to first watch someone who is open about their biases and learn to catch people in lies before graduating to people who try be unbiased and catching them in those lies.

All news outlets just give you the narrative, it's up to you to do the groundwork to find out what's identifiably true and what's not, and make useful judgments on the rest.

I'll say it again: news outlets aren't authorities, they're platforms. Even if you find one that has never lied to your knowledge and gives you timely and incredibly useful information, don't shut off your brain and don't elevate it/them into something infallible.

This need for vigilance, incisive intellect, and an autistic focus on things actually being true before taking them as true is why most people can and always will be easily led three ways from Sunday by various arms of the media. People are lazy, integrity is hard.

A big surge of horseshit. I asked because I don't have the time to read 27 newspapers from different countries only to understand what is the most impartial and objective. I asked because I trust the opinion of most people on here.

Just read Alex Jones and Huffington Post for the full picture

I didn't ask you to read 27 newspapers. I'm telling you that learning to swim is better then memorizing a currently dry path in a crisscrossing web of ocean sandbars in a landscape that is forever changing.

Good post if sarcastic. Scary if serious.

Sometimes I look at the news section of wikipeida

>Kansas City Star
I am truly sorry for your lots.

Death of the author.

Fuck off. The whole point of asking for good quality news sources is that it then doesn't matter if I have good judgement or verification of what ever. I just stick to quality sources and I'll have the truth.

This faggot is trying to steal my identity (). Childish.

I came here to see what news sources people have posted. Why can't I tell someone to fuck off and explain why I disagree? Just because you talked to them before I did?

So, to be clear to , I am not . I just disagree with what you said and explained my position. Hope that clears up any hurt feelings or identity discomfort.

>he's implicitly stealing my identity on an anonymous board!
lol

These other guys are giving you a hard time, but I'm legitimately curious. With the additional perspective of time, do you think that was a bit of an overreaction, and that calling someone childish on that basis was unnecessary? If not, how is it justified?

this, and there's no reason to other than to be able to socialize about shit with other people who waste their time watching the news, your life is not ever going to change by knowing one more awful after thing another that's happening, I'm already well aware of our condition and have zero need to be constantly reminded.

I use a news aggregation, and sometimes I just want to read about certain subjects in the last few months.

Also, Vice News and Vanity fair I use almost exclusively for celebrity garbage

Russia Today, and Veeky Forums

>people read more than the headlines before digging deeper themselves or talking to people
What the actual fuck?

Guardian
FT
Economist
BBC

I'm always rather ironic when I post on this website. I often laugh at my own posts.

The Intercept, truthdig, democracy now!

CNN (for hourly horse race bullshit, most of it is bad)
The Intercept (foreign affairs)
Jacobin (good long-form articles)

Funny how you can't detect irony in a website culture infested with meta-meta-metairony.

The Economist
New Yorker
Politico
Axios
WSJ
Financial Times
HBJ

/pol/
CNN
RT
Infowars
Colbert Report
Forbes
Hacker News

And Business Insider

>arious "sjw's rekt-accounts" on twitter

I mostly find out what happened by talking to people. Sometimes from Veeky Forums.

I've tried to set up RSS readers/news aggregators many times, and I've always regretted it. There's just too much fucking shit that clogs up the feed - headlines that deliberately try to generate a reaction and get you to click. Even limiting the sources to a select few doesn't help, because even the most esteemed sources will have a good fraction of clickbait-y articles.

Take pic related as an example. "Why girl, 2, had to defend her choice of doll." This is an example of complete trash that I don't want in my feed. Why in the fuck would I ever give a shit about this random child and her fucking doll? "This vault seeks to protect world's most precious data." Fuck off. Which vault? I'm not going to click you shitty story to find out. If this vault were so substantial and important, they wouldn't so vague about it in the headline. Why would I waste my life away reading about random shit that won't have a substantial impact on the world?

Now I'm not sure why I care so much. I don't understand how anybody can spend so much time reading the news. Most of it is mediocre writing and wishy-washy analyses. All the time taken to read articles, compare sources, and come up with my own conclusions I'd rather spend on reading more substantial books and learning deeper truths about the world.

>marxist shitheel who reads NYT Jacobin and new yorker
>plays video games and reads video game reviews and discusses video games online like a fucking manchild
every time

did you post that image knowing it was an Aldo Rossi building?

>neoliberals are marxists
>social democrats are marxists
>people who publish shitty sentimental bourgeois stories about middle aged women with family issues are marxists
Lower taxes a smidgen and you're Hitler.

National Review
Spectator
American Spectator
New Yorker
New Statesman
RT
CGTN

Breitbart

Neoliberal doesn't mean what you think it means.

I hate this dork so much.

/pol/

>I am truly sorry for your lots.

Eh? The Star has had a lot of lay offs if that's what you're talking about (myself included). But KC is a cool place.

al jazeera
bbc
reuters
rt
/pol/
hacker news
various neoreactionaries on twitter

Who even is he?

helsingin sanomat
yle
al jazeera
bbc
guardian

Any huezilians in here? Can you tell me if ig.com has some serious dirt behind it? It's what I read to get the news of the day, it just seems to have a slight neoliberal bias.

Like every other big media outlet over here, the neoliberal bias is the norm, see VEJA, O Estado de São Paulo, ISTOÉ, G1 or even Carta Capital and any other newspaper/news network. I, being from SC, get my local news from the ClickRBS/A Notícia combo and my international news from Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Economist and Reuters, the NYT once in a while.

You just have to waddle trough the shitty "let's suck America's cock and open our asses to globalization and idolize the """free markets""" worldwide" narrative BR media pushes and you're set.

Also avoid Jornal Nacional and GloboNews like the plague.

Vox, Verge, Guardian, Politico, BBC, NPR, Inter Press Service, Al Jazeera,

>taking these goys seriously